TY - JOUR
T1 - Agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical encounters
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis of interrater agreement
AU - Röttele, Nicole
AU - Schöpf-Lazzarino, Andrea C.
AU - Becker, Sonja
AU - Körner, Mirjam
AU - Boeker, Martin
AU - Wirtz, Markus A.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2020/10
Y1 - 2020/10
N2 - Objective: To determine the agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face consultations. Methods: A systematic search of twelve databases was conducted. Studies investigating agreement between physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face encounters and reporting interrater agreement were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and study characteristics and physician-patient agreement were narratively summarized. Meta-analysis was conducted for a subsample of the included studies investigating shared decision making. Results: Of the 17 included studies, ten studies did not demonstrate any correspondence between physician and patient ratings. The remaining seven studies revealed poor to fair absolute agreement (κ between .13 and .42; κw between .31 and .49; 95% CI 0.13 – 0.76) and poor to moderate consistency (r = .17 and .06; rpolyc between .39 and .63; p < .05). Meta-analysis of six studies yielded small association (rpolyc = .15). Conclusion: Physicians and patients evaluate communication differently and at best, only slightly agree in their ratings, indicating that the construct of communication is not measurable in a stable manner. Practice implications: Decision makers and researchers should be aware that they assess different aspects of communication, depending on the perspective examined.
AB - Objective: To determine the agreement of physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face consultations. Methods: A systematic search of twelve databases was conducted. Studies investigating agreement between physician and patient ratings of communication in medical face-to-face encounters and reporting interrater agreement were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and study characteristics and physician-patient agreement were narratively summarized. Meta-analysis was conducted for a subsample of the included studies investigating shared decision making. Results: Of the 17 included studies, ten studies did not demonstrate any correspondence between physician and patient ratings. The remaining seven studies revealed poor to fair absolute agreement (κ between .13 and .42; κw between .31 and .49; 95% CI 0.13 – 0.76) and poor to moderate consistency (r = .17 and .06; rpolyc between .39 and .63; p < .05). Meta-analysis of six studies yielded small association (rpolyc = .15). Conclusion: Physicians and patients evaluate communication differently and at best, only slightly agree in their ratings, indicating that the construct of communication is not measurable in a stable manner. Practice implications: Decision makers and researchers should be aware that they assess different aspects of communication, depending on the perspective examined.
KW - Interrater agreement
KW - meta-analysis
KW - physician-patient communication
KW - physician-patient interaction
KW - shared decision making
KW - systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084149481&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.002
DO - 10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.002
M3 - Review article
C2 - 32376141
AN - SCOPUS:85084149481
SN - 0738-3991
VL - 103
SP - 1873
EP - 1882
JO - Patient Education and Counseling
JF - Patient Education and Counseling
IS - 10
ER -