Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 4/2015

Open Access 01-04-2015

The importance of productive patient–professional interaction for the well-being of chronically ill patients

Authors: Jane Murray Cramm, Anna Petra Nieboer

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To investigate patient–professional interactions and identify the association between quality of care, productivity of patient–professional interaction, and chronically ill patients’ well-being.

Methods

Questionnaires were distributed to chronically ill patients [T1 (2011), 2,191/4,693 (47 %) respondents; T2 (2012), 1,722/4,350 (40 %) respondents].

Results

Patients perceived a higher degree of productive interaction with general practitioners compared to other professionals. Bivariate analyses showed that patients’ well-being at T2 was positively related to well-being at T1 (r = 0.70), quality of care (r = 0.12), and productive patient–professional interaction (r = 0.31; all p ≤ 0.001). Single status (r = –0.14), low education (r = –0.11), and female gender (r = –0.11; all p ≤ 0.001) were negatively associated with well-being. Multivariate analyses showed that after controlling for background characteristics and well-being at baseline quality of care is associated with patients’ well-being at T2 (p ≤ 0.01). When productive patient–professional interactions were entered into the equation, they not only were related to patients’ well-being (p ≤ 0.001) but also mediated the relationship between the quality of care and well-being. More productive patient–professional interactions were related to better well-being at T2 (B = 0.11), assuming that all other factors in the model remained constant.

Conclusions

Productive patient–professional interactions are associated with chronically ill patients’ well-being over time and mediate the relationship between well-being and quality of care. Improvement of the quality of chronic care delivery should always be accompanied by investment in the quality of relationships and communication between patients and professionals.
Literature
1.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., Davis, C., Hindmarsh, M., Schaefer, J., & Bonomi, A. (2001). Improving chronic illness care: Translating evidence into action. Health Affairs, 20, 64–78.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Wagner, E. H., Bennett, S. M., Austin, B. T., Greene, S. M., Schaefer, J. K., & Von Korff, M. (2005). Finding common ground: Patient-centeredness and evidence-based chronic illness care. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 11, 7–15.CrossRef
3.
Wagner, E. H., Austin, B. T., & Von Korff, M. (1996). Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. The Milbank Quarterly, 74, 511–544.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bodenheimer, T., Wagner, E. H., & Grumbach, K. (2002). Improving primary care for patients with chronic illness: The chronic care model, part 2. JAMA, 288, 1909–1914.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Coleman, K., Austin, B. T., Brach, C., et al. (2009). Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Affairs, 28, 75–85.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). High-quality chronic care delivery improves experiences of chronically ill patients receiving care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 25, 689–695.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
7.
Sandman, L., & Munthe, C. (2009). Shared decision-making and patient autonomy. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 30, 289–310.CrossRefPubMed
8.
King, J. S., & Moulton, B. (2006). Rethinking informed consent: The case for shared medical decision-making. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 32, 429–501.PubMed
9.
Wigersma, L., Brabers, A., Reitsma, M., & Jong, J. D. (2011). Transparantie is niet zichtbaar: Onderzoek naar opvattingen over vraagsturing in de zorg. Medisch Contact, 66(45), 2776–2778.
10.
Harrington, J., Noble, L. M., & Newman, S. P. (2004). Improving patients’ communication with doctors: A systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 52(1), 7–16.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Kinnersley, P., Edwards, A., Hood, K., Ryan, R., Prout, H., Cadbury, N., et al. (2008). Interventions before consultations to help patients address their information needs by encouraging question asking: Systematic review. BMJ, 337, a485.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
12.
Cegala, D. J., & Post, D. M. (2009). The impact of patients’ participation on physicians’ patient-centered communication. Patient Education and Counseling, 77(2), 202–208.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Cribb, A., & Entwistle, V. A. (2011). Shared decision making: Trade-offs between narrower and broader conceptions. Health Expectation, 14(2), 210–219.CrossRef
14.
Brom, L., Hopmans, W., Pasman, H. R., Timmermans, D. R., Widdershoven, G. A., & Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D. (2014). Congruence between patients’ preferred and perceived participation in medical decision-making: A review of the literature. BMC Medical Information and Decision Making, 14, 25.CrossRef
15.
Kiesler, D. J., & Auerbach, S. M. (2006). Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: Evidence, models and interventions. Patient Education and Counseling, 61(3), 319–341.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gittell, J. H. (2002). Relationships between service providers and their impact on customers. Journal of Service Research, 4, 299–311.CrossRef
17.
Gittell, J. H., & Douglass, A. (2012). Relational bureaucracy: Structuring reciprocal relationships into roles. Academy of Management Review, 37, 709–733.CrossRef
18.
Øvretveit, J. (2011). Does clinical coordination improve quality and save money? A summary review of the evidence. London: The Health Foundation.
19.
Havens, D. S., Vasey, J., Gittell, J. H., & Lin, W. T. (2010). Relational coordination among nurses and other providers: Impact on the quality of patient care. Journal of Nursing Management, 18, 926–937.CrossRefPubMed
20.
O’Leary, K. J., Ritter, C. D., Wheeler, H., Szkendi, M. K., Brinton, T. S., & Williams, M. V. (2010). Teamwork on inpatient medical units: Assessing attitudes and barriers. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 19, 117–121.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Lemmens, K. M. M., Rutten-Van Mölken, M. P. M. H., Cramm, J. M., Huijsman, R., Bal, R. A., & Nieboer, A. P. (2011). Evaluation of a large scale implementation of disease management programmes in various Dutch regions: A study protocol. BMC Health Services Research, 11, 6.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
22.
Nieboer, A., Lindenberg, S., Boomsma, A., & van Bruggen, A. C. (2005). Dimensions of well-being and their measurement: The SPF-IL scale. Social Indicators Research, 73, 313–353.CrossRef
23.
Cramm, J. M., Hartgerink, J. M., de Vreede, P. L., Bakker, T. J., Steyerberg, E. W., Mackenbach, J. P., et al. (2012). The relationship between older adults’ self-management abilities, well-being and depression. European Journal of Ageing, 9, 353–360.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
24.
Cramm, J. M., Hartgerink, J. M., Bakker, T. J., Steyerberg, E. W., Mackenbach, J. P., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). Understanding older patients’ self-management abilities: Functional loss, self-management, and well-being. Quality of Life Research, 22, 85–92.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
25.
Cramm, J. M., van Dijk, H. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2013). The importance of perceived neighborhood social cohesion and social capital for the well-being of older adults in the community. The Gerontologist, 53, 142–152.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Gittell, J. H. (2001). Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: A reassessment of post-bureaucracy theory. Organization Science, 12, 467–482.CrossRef
27.
Hartgerink, J. M., Cramm, J. M., Bakker, T. J., van Eijsden, A. M., Mackenbach, J. P., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). The importance of multidisciplinary teamwork and team climate for relational coordination among teams delivering care to older patients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 70(4), 791–799.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
28.
Hartgerink, J. M., Cramm, J. M., de Vos, A. J. B. M., Bakker, T. J. E. M., Steyerberg, E. W., Mackenbach, J. P., et al. (2014). Situational awareness, relational coordination and integrated care delivery to hospitalized elderly in The Netherlands: A comparison between hospitals. BMC Geriatrics, 14, 3.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
29.
Weinberg, D. B., Lusenhop, R. W., Gittell, J. H., & Kautz, C. M. (2007). Coordination between formal providers and informal caregivers. Health Care Management Review, 32(2), 140–149.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2012). Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic-care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs. Health Care Management Review, 37, 301–309.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2012). In the Netherlands, rich interaction among professionals conducting disease management led to better chronic care. Health Affairs (Millwood), 31, 2493–2500.CrossRef
32.
Cramm, J. M., Hoeijmakers, M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2014). Relational coordination between community health nurses and other professionals in delivering care to community-dwelling frail people. Journal of Nursing Management, 22(2), 170–176.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Cramm, J. M., & Nieboer, A. P. (2012). Factorial validation of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and PACIC short version (PACIC-S) among cardiovascular disease patients in the Netherlands. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 10, 104.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed
Metadata
Title
The importance of productive patient–professional interaction for the well-being of chronically ill patients
Authors
Jane Murray Cramm
Anna Petra Nieboer
Publication date
01-04-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0813-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Quality of Life Research 4/2015 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

A new computerized adaptive test advancing the measurement of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children: the Kids-CAT

OriginalPaper

The relationship between economic characteristics and health-related quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients in Southeast Asia: results from an observational study

Brief Communication

Validity of EQ-5D-5L in stroke

OriginalPaper

Construct validity of SF-6D health state utility values in an employed population

OriginalPaper

Quality of life profile in Italian long-term cancer survivors

Brief Communication

Measuring quality of life with fuzzy numbers: in the perspectives of reliability, validity, measurement invariance, and feasibility