Cargando…

Patient–physician relationship and use of gut feeling in cancer diagnosis in primary care: a cross-sectional survey of patients and their general practitioners

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the quality of the patient–physician relationship, assessed by the general practitioner (GP) and the patient, associates with GPs’ use of gut feeling (GF) in cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey of cancer patients and their GPs. SETTING: Danis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pedersen, Anette Fischer, Andersen, Christina Maar, Ingeman, Mads Lind, Vedsted, Peter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6629394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31289073
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-027288
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the quality of the patient–physician relationship, assessed by the general practitioner (GP) and the patient, associates with GPs’ use of gut feeling (GF) in cancer diagnosis. DESIGN: Cross-sectional questionnaire survey of cancer patients and their GPs. SETTING: Danish primary care. PARTICIPANTS: Newly diagnosed cancer patients and their GPs. Patients completed a questionnaire and provided the name of the GP to whom they have presented their symptoms. The named GP subsequently received a questionnaire. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: GPs’ use of GF in the diagnostic process for the particular patient. GPs who answered that they used their GF ‘to a high degree’ or ‘to a very high degree’ were categorised as ‘used their GF to a great extent’. GPs who answered that they used their GF ‘to some degree’, ‘to a limited degree’ or ‘not at all’ were categorised as ‘limited or no use of GF’. RESULTS: GPs were less likely to use GF when they assessed relational aspects of the patient encounter as difficult compared with less difficult (OR=0.67; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.97). The physician-reported level of empathy was positively associated with use of GF (OR=2.60; 95% CI 1.60 to 4.22). The lower use of GF in difficult encounters was not modified by level of empathy. CONCLUSIONS: Experiencing relational aspects of patient encounter as difficult acted as a barrier for the use of GF in cancer diagnosis. Although physician-rated empathy increased use of GF, high empathy did not dissolve the low use of GF in difficult encounters. As diagnosis of cancer is a key challenge in primary care, it is important that GPs are aware that the sensitivity of cancer-related GF is compromised by a difficult patient–physician relationship.