Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mary Catherine Beach

Publications and source records attributed to Mary Catherine Beach.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Are physicians' attitudes of respect accurately perceived by patients and associated with more positive communication behaviors?

OBJECTIVE: To explore the domain of physician-reported respect for individual patients by investigating the following questions: How variable is physician-reported respect for patients? What patient characteristics are associated with greater physician-reported respect? Do patients accurately perceive levels of physician respect? Are there specific communication behaviors associated with physician-reported respect for patients? METHODS: We audiotaped 215 patient-physician encounters with 30 different physicians in primary care. After each encounter, the physician rated the level of respect that s/he had for that patient using the following item: "Compared to other patients, I have a great deal of respect for this patient" on a five-point scale between strongly agree and strongly disagree. Patients completed a post-visit questionnaire that included a parallel respect item: "This doctor has a great deal of respect for me." Audiotapes of the patient visits were analyzed using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) to characterize communication behaviors. Outcome variables included four physician communication behaviors: information-giving, rapport-building, global affect, and verbal dominance. A linear mixed effects modeling approach that accounts for clustering of patients within physicians was used to compare varying levels of physician-reported respect for patients with physician communication behaviors and patient perceptions of being respected. RESULTS: : Physician-reported respect varied across patients. Physicians strongly agreed that they had a great deal of respect for 73 patients (34%), agreed for 96 patients (45%) and were either neutral or disagreed for 46 patients (21%). Physicians reported higher levels of respect for older patients and for patients they knew well. The level of respect that physicians reported for individual patients was not significantly associated with that patient's gender, race, education, or health status; was not associated with the physician's gender, race, or number of years in practice; and was not associated with race concordance between patient and physician. While 45% of patients overestimated physician respect, 38% reported respect precisely as rated by the physician, and 16% underestimated physician respect (r=0.18, p=0.007). Those who were the least respected by their physician were the least likely to perceive themselves as being highly respected; only 36% of the least respected patients compared to 59% and 61% of the highly and moderately respected patients perceived themselves to be highly respected (p=0.012). Compared with the least-respected patients, physicians were more affectively positive with highly respected patients (p=0.034) and provided more information to highly and moderately respected patients (p=0.018). CONCLUSION: Physicians' ratings of respect vary across patients and are primarily associated with familiarity rather than sociodemographic characteristics. Patients are able to perceive when they are respected by their physicians, although when they are not accurate, they tend to overestimate physician respect. Physicians who are more respectful towards particular patients provide more information and express more positive affect in visits with those patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physician respectful attitudes may be important to target in improving communication with patients.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Improving health care quality for racial/ethnic minorities: a systematic review of the best evidence regarding provider and organization interventions.

BACKGROUND: Despite awareness of inequities in health care quality, little is known about strategies that could improve the quality of healthcare for ethnic minority populations. We conducted a systematic literature review and analysis to synthesize the findings of controlled studies evaluating interventions targeted at health care providers to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities. METHODS: We performed electronic and hand searches from 1980 through June 2003 to identify randomized controlled trials or concurrent controlled trials. Reviewers abstracted data from studies to determine study characteristics, results, and quality. We graded the strength of the evidence as excellent, good, fair or poor using predetermined criteria. The main outcome measures were evidence of effectiveness and cost of strategies to improve health care quality or reduce disparities in care for racial/ethnic minorities. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met criteria for review. Almost all (n = 26) took place in the primary care setting, and most (n = 19) focused on improving provision of preventive services. Only two studies were designed specifically to meet the needs of racial/ethnic minority patients. All 10 studies that used a provider reminder system for provision of standardized services (mostly preventive) reported favorable outcomes. The following quality improvement strategies demonstrated favorable results but were used in a small number of studies: bypassing the physician to offer preventive services directly to patients (2 of 2 studies favorable), provider education alone (2 of 2 studies favorable), use of a structured questionnaire to assess adolescent health behaviors (1 of 1 study favorable), and use of remote simultaneous translation (1 of 1 study favorable). Interventions employing more than one main strategy were used in 9 studies with inconsistent results. There were limited data on the costs of these strategies, as only one study reported cost data. CONCLUSION: There are several promising strategies that may improve health care quality for racial/ethnic minorities, but a lack of studies specifically targeting disease areas and processes of care for which disparities have been previously documented. Further research and funding is needed to evaluate strategies designed to reduce disparities in health care quality for racial/ethnic minorities.

Ethnicity↗
PubMed2006

Relationship-centered care. A constructive reframing.

All illness, care, and healing processes occur in relationship--relationships of an individual with self and with others. Relationship-centered care (RCC) is an important framework for conceptualizing health care, recognizing that the nature and the quality of relationships are central to health care and the broader health care delivery system. RCC can be defined as care in which all participants appreciate the importance of their relationships with one another. RCC is founded upon 4 principles: (1) that relationships in health care ought to include the personhood of the participants, (2) that affect and emotion are important components of these relationships, (3) that all health care relationships occur in the context of reciprocal influence, and (4) that the formation and maintenance of genuine relationships in health care is morally valuable. In RCC, relationships between patients and clinicians remain central, although the relationships of clinicians with themselves, with each other and with community are also emphasized.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2006

Delving below the surface. Understanding how race and ethnicity influence relationships in health care.

There is increasing evidence that racial and ethnic minority patients receive lower quality interpersonal care than white patients. Therapeutic relationships constitute the interpersonal milieu in which patients are diagnosed, given treatment recommendations, and referred for tests, procedures, or care by consultants in the health care system. This paper provides a review and perspective on the literature that explores the role of relationships and social interactions across racial and ethnic differences in health care. First, we examine the social and historical context for examining differences in interpersonal treatment in health care along racial and ethnic lines. Second, we discuss selected studies that examine how race and ethnicity influence clinician-patient relationships. While less is known about how race and ethnicity influence clinician-community, clinician-clinician, and clinician-self relationships, we briefly examine the potential roles of these relationships in overcoming disparities in health care. Finally, we suggest directions for future research on racial and ethnic health care disparities that uses a relationship-centered paradigm.

Cultural Diversity↗
PubMed2006

Is the quality of the patient-provider relationship associated with better adherence and health outcomes for patients with HIV?

PURPOSE: Patient-centeredness, originally defined as understanding each patient as a unique person, is widely considered the standard for high-quality interpersonal care. The purpose of our study was to examine the association between patient perception of being "known as a person" and receipt of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), adherence to HAART, and health outcomes among patients with HIV. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SUBJECTS: One thousand seven hundred and forty-three patients with HIV. MEASUREMENTS: Patient reports that their HIV provider "knows me as a person" and 3 outcomes: receipt of HAART, adherence to HAART, and undetectable serum HIV RNA. RESULTS: Patients who reported that their provider knows them "as a person" were more likely to receive HAART (60% vs 47%, P<.001), be adherent to HAART (76% vs 67%, P=.007), and have undetectable serum HIV RNA (49% vs 39%, P<.001). Patients who reported their provider knows them "as a person" were also older (mean 38.0 vs 36.6 years, P<.001), reported higher quality-of-life (mean LASA score 71.1 vs 64.8, P<.001), had been followed in clinic longer (mean 64.4 vs 61.7 months, P=.008), missed fewer appointments (mean proportion missed appointments 0.124 vs 0.144, P<.001), reported more positive beliefs about HAART therapy (39% vs 28% strongly believed HIV medications could help them live longer, P<.008), reported less social stress (50% vs 62% did not eat regular meals, P<.001) and were less likely to use illicit drugs or alcohol (22% vs 33% used drugs, P<.001; 42% vs 53% used alcohol, P<.001). Controlling for patient age, sex, race/ethnicity, quality-of-life, length of time in clinic, missed appointments, health beliefs, social stress, and illicit drug and alcohol use, patients who reported their provider knows them "as a person" had higher odds of receiving HAART (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19 to 1.65), adhering to HAART (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.72), and having undetectable serum HIV RNA (1.20, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a single item measuring the essence of patient-centeredness-the patients' perception of being "known as a person"-is significantly and independently associated with receiving HAART, adhering to HAART, and having undetectable serum HIV RNA. These results support the hypothesis that the quality of patient-physician relationship is directly related to the health of patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The moral nature of patient-centeredness: is it "just the right thing to do"?

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centeredness is regarded as an important feature of high quality patient care, but little effort has been devoted to grounding patient-centeredness as an explicitly moral concept. We sought to describe the moral commitments that underlie patient-centered care. METHODS: We analyzed the key ideas that are commonly described in the literature on patient-centeredness in the context of three major schools of ethical thought. RESULTS: Consequentialist moral theories focus on the positive outcomes of providing patient-centered care. Deontological theories emphasize how patient-centered care reflects the ethical norms inherent in medicine, such as respect for persons and shared decision-making. Virtue-based theories highlight the importance of developing patient-centered attitudes and traits, which in turn influence physicians' behaviors toward their patients. CONCLUSION: Different ethical theories concentrate on different features of patient-centered care, but all can agree that patient-centeredness is morally valuable. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: In order to sustain patient-centeredness as a moral concept, practitioners and students ought to examine these ideas to determine what their own personal reasons are for or against adopting a patient-centered approach.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2005

Challenges in systematic reviews of educational intervention studies.

Educators have recognized the need to apply evidence-based approaches to medical training. To do so, medical educators must have access to reliable evidence on the impact of educational interventions. This paper describes 5 methodologic challenges to performing systematic reviews of educational interventions for health care professionals: finding reports of medical education interventions, assessing quality of study designs, assessing the scope of interventions, assessing the evaluation of interventions, and synthesizing the results of educational interventions. We offer suggestions for addressing these challenges and make recommendations for reporting, reviewing, and appraising interventions in medical education.

Education, Medical↗
PubMed2005

A systematic review of the methodological rigor of studies evaluating cultural competence training of health professionals.

PURPOSE: To systematically examine the methodological rigor of studies using cultural competence training as a strategy to improve minority health care quality. To the authors' knowledge, no prior studies of this type have been conducted. METHOD: As part of a systematic review, the authors appraised the methodological rigor of studies published in English from 1980 to 2003 that evaluate cultural competence training, and determined whether selected study characteristics were associated with better study quality as defined by five domains (representativeness, intervention description, bias and confounding, outcome assessment, and analytic approach). RESULTS: Among 64 eligible articles, most studies (no. = 59) were published recently (1990-2003) in education (no. = 26) and nursing (no. = 14) journals. Targeted learners were mostly nurses (no. = 32) and physicians (no. = 19). Study designs included randomized or concurrent controlled trials (no. = 10), pretest/posttest (no. = 22), posttest only (no. = 27), and qualitative evaluation (no. = 5). Curricular content, teaching strategies, and evaluation methods varied. Most studies reported provider outcomes. Twenty-one articles adequately described provider representativeness, 21 completely described curricular interventions, eight had adequate comparison groups, 27 used objective evaluations, three blinded outcome assessors, 14 reported the number or reason for noninclusion of data, and 15 reported magnitude differences and variability indexes. Studies targeted at physicians more often described providers and interventions. Most trials completely described targeted providers, had adequate comparison groups, and reported objective evaluations. Study quality did not differ over time, by journal type, or by the presence or absence of reported funding. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of methodological rigor limits the evidence for the impact of cultural competence training on minority health care quality. More attention should be paid to the proper design, evaluation, and reporting of these training programs.

Cultural Diversity↗
PubMed2005

Cultural competence: a systematic review of health care provider educational interventions.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to synthesize the findings of studies evaluating interventions to improve the cultural competence of health professionals. DESIGN: This was a systematic literature review and analysis. METHODS: We performed electronic and hand searches from 1980 through June 2003 to identify studies that evaluated interventions designed to improve the cultural competence of health professionals. We abstracted and synthesized data from studies that had both a before- and an after-intervention evaluation or had a control group for comparison and graded the strength of the evidence as excellent, good, fair, or poor using predetermined criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We sought evidence of the effectiveness and costs of cultural competence training of health professionals. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies were included in our review. There is excellent evidence that cultural competence training improves the knowledge of health professionals (17 of 19 studies demonstrated a beneficial effect), and good evidence that cultural competence training improves the attitudes and skills of health professionals (21 of 25 studies evaluating attitudes demonstrated a beneficial effect and 14 of 14 studies evaluating skills demonstrated a beneficial effect). There is good evidence that cultural competence training impacts patient satisfaction (3 of 3 studies demonstrated a beneficial effect), poor evidence that cultural competence training impacts patient adherence (although the one study designed to do this demonstrated a beneficial effect), and no studies that have evaluated patient health status outcomes. There is poor evidence to determine the costs of cultural competence training (5 studies included incomplete estimates of costs). CONCLUSIONS: Cultural competence training shows promise as a strategy for improving the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of health professionals. However, evidence that it improves patient adherence to therapy, health outcomes, and equity of services across racial and ethnic groups is lacking. Future research should focus on these outcomes and should determine which teaching methods and content are most effective.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

Racial and ethnic differences in patient perceptions of bias and cultural competence in health care.

OBJECTIVES: To determine: 1) whether racial and ethnic differences exist in patients' perceptions of primary care provider (PCP) and general health care system-related bias and cultural competence; and 2) whether these differences are explained by patient demographics, source of care, or patient-provider communication variables. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone survey. SETTING: The Commonwealth Fund 2001 Health Care Quality Survey. SUBJECTS: A total of 6,299 white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian adults. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Interviews were conducted using random-digit dialing; oversampling respondents from communities with high racial/ethnic minority concentrations; and yielding a 54.3% response rate. Main outcomes address respondents' perceptions of their PCPs' and health care system-related bias and cultural competence; adjusted probabilities (Pr) are reported for each ethnic group. Most racial/ethnic differences in perceptions of PCP bias and cultural competence were explained by demographics, source of care, and patient-physician communication variables. In contrast, racial/ethnic differences in patient perceptions of health care system-wide bias and cultural competence persisted even after controlling for confounders: African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians remained more likely than whites (P <.001) to perceive that: 1) they would have received better medical care if they belonged to a different race/ethnic group (Pr 0.13, Pr 0.08, Pr 0.08, and Pr 0.01, respectively); and 2) medical staff judged them unfairly or treated them with disrespect based on race/ethnicity (Pr 0.06, Pr 0.04, Pr 0.06, and Pr 0.01, respectively) and how well they speak English (Pr 0.09, Pr 0.06, Pr 0.06, and Pr 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: While demographics, source of care, and patient-physician communication explain most racial and ethnic differences in patient perceptions of PCP cultural competence, differences in perceptions of health care system-wide bias and cultural competence are not fully explained by such factors. Future research should include closer examination of the sources of cultural bias in the US medical system.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

What do physicians tell patients about themselves? A qualitative analysis of physician self-disclosure.

OBJECTIVE: Physician self-disclosure (PSD) has been alternatively described as a boundary violation or a means to foster trust and rapport with patients. We analyzed a series of physician self-disclosure statements to inform the current controversy. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of all PSD statements identified using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) during 1,265 audiotaped office visits. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-four physicians and 1,265 of their patients. MAIN RESULTS: Some form of PSD occurred in 195/1,265 (15.4%) of routine office visits. In some visits, disclosure occurred more than once; thus, there were 242 PSD statements available for analysis. PSD statements fell into the following categories: reassurance (n = 71), counseling (n = 60), rapport building (n = 55), casual (n = 31), intimate (n = 14), and extended narratives (n = 11). Reassurance disclosures indicated the physician had the same experience as the patient ("I've used quite a bit of that medicine myself"). Counseling disclosures seemed intended to guide action ("I just got my flu shot"). Rapport-building disclosures were either humorous anecdotes or statements of empathy ("I know I'd be nervous, too"). Casual disclosures were short statements that had little obvious connection to the patient's condition ("I wish I could sleep sitting up"). Intimate disclosures refer to private revelations ("I cried a lot with my divorce, too") and extended narratives were extremely long and had no relation to the patient's condition. CONCLUSIONS: Physician self-disclosure encompasses complex and varied communication behaviors. Self-disclosing statements that are self-preoccupied or intimate are rare. When debating whether physicians ought to reveal their personal experiences to patients, it is important for researchers to be more specific about the types of statements physicians should or should not make.

Counseling↗
PubMed2004

Is physician self-disclosure related to patient evaluation of office visits?

CONTEXT: Physician self-disclosure has been viewed either positively or negatively, but little is known about how patients respond to physician self-disclosure. OBJECTIVE: To explore the possible relationship of physician self-disclosure to patient satisfaction. DESIGN: Routine office visits were audiotaped and coded for physician self-disclosure using the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS). Physician self-disclosure was defined as a statement describing the physician's personal experience that has medical and/or emotional relevance for the patient. We stratified our analysis by physician specialty and compared patient satisfaction following visits in which physician self-disclosure did or did not occur. PARTICIPANTS: Patients (N= 1,265) who visited 59 primary care physicians and 65 surgeons. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient satisfaction following the visit. RESULTS: Physician self-disclosure occurred in 17% (102/589) of primary care visits and 14% (93/676) of surgical visits. Following visits in which a primary care physician self-disclosed, fewer patients reported feelings of warmth/friendliness (37% vs 52%; P =.008) and reassurance/comfort (42% vs 55%; P =.027), and fewer reported being very satisfied with the visit (74% vs 83%; P =.031). Following visits in which a surgeon self-disclosed, more patients reported feelings of warmth/friendliness (60% vs 45%; P =.009) and reassurance/comfort (59% vs 47%; P=.044), and more reported being very satisfied with the visit (88% vs 75%; P =.007). After adjustment for patient characteristics, length of the visit, and other physician communication behaviors, primary care patients remained less satisfied (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.81) and surgical patients more satisfied (AOR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.12 to 4.50) after visits in which the physician self-disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physician self-disclosure is significantly associated with higher patient satisfaction ratings for surgical visits and lower patient satisfaction ratings for primary care visits. Further study is needed to explore these intriguing findings and to define the circumstances under which physician self-disclosure is either well or poorly received.

Female↗
PubMed2002

The effect of do-not-resuscitate orders on physician decision-making.

The effect of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders on physicians' decisions to provide life-prolonging treatments other than cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) for patients near the end of life was explored using a cross-sectional mailed survey. Each survey presented three patient scenarios followed by 10 treatment decisions. Participants were residents and attending physicians who were randomly assigned surveys in which all patient scenarios included or did not include a DNR order. Response to three case scenarios when a DNR order was present or absent were measured. Response from 241 of 463 physicians (52%) was received. Physicians agreed or strongly agreed to initiate fewer interventions when a DNR order was present versus absent (4.2 vs 5.0 (P =.008) in the first scenario; 6.5 vs 7.1 (P =.004) in the second scenario; and 5.7 vs 6.2 (P =.037) in the third scenario). In all three scenarios, patients with DNR orders were significantly less likely to be transferred to an intensive care unit, to be intubated, or to receive CPR. In some scenarios, the presence of a DNR order was associated with a decreased willingness to draw blood cultures (91% vs 98%, P =.038), central line placement (68% vs 80%, P =.030), or blood transfusion (75% vs 87%, P =.015). The presence of a DNR order may affect physicians' willingness to order a variety of treatments not related to CPR. Patients with DNR orders may choose to forgo other life-prolonging treatments, but physicians should elicit additional information about patients' treatment goals to inform these decisions.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs in clinical decisions.

PURPOSE: To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions. METHODS: The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey describing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement (kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive. RESULTS: Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Physician conceptions of responsibility to individual patients and distributive justice in health care.

PURPOSE: Physicians' values may be shifting under managed care, but there have been no empirical data to support this claim. We describe physician conceptions of responsibility to individual patients and distributive justice in health care, and explore whether these values are associated with type of managed care practice and professional satisfaction. METHODS: We mailed a questionnaire to 500 primary care physicians from 80 out-patient clinics in 11 managed care organizations (MCOs) who were participating in 4 studies designed to improve the quality of depression care in primary care. RESULTS: We received 414 responses (response rate 83%). Twenty-eight percent of physicians strongly agreed that their main responsibility was to the individual patient rather than to society (strong sense of responsibility to individual patients). Physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients were older (43% of physicians older than 50 years reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients, compared with 26% of physicians aged 36 to 50 years, and 21% of physicians younger than 35 years, P = .009) and tended to practice in network- rather than staff-model MCOs (33% of physicians in network-model MCOs reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients compared with 24% in staff-model MCOs, P = .077). Scores on a scale measuring egalitarian conceptions of distributive justice within the health care system were similar for physicians regardless of whether they reported a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients. When we controlled for physician and practice characteristics, physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients and physicians with higher scores on an egalitarian scale were more likely to be very satisfied overall with their practices (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.23, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-4.49, and AOR = 1.18, 95% CI, 1.09-1.29, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians with a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients are older and less likely to practice in staff-model MCOs. Stronger commitment to an egalitarian health care system and a strong sense of responsibility to individual patients are independently associated with greater practice satisfaction among physicians. The impact of these values on patient care should be a priority for future research and the subject of professional education and debate.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Do patients treated with dignity report higher satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of preventive care?

PURPOSE: Although involving patients in their own health care is known to be associated with improved outcomes, this study was conducted to determine whether respecting persons more broadly, such as treating them with dignity, has additional positive effects. METHODS: Using data from the Commonwealth Fund 2001 Health Care Quality Survey of 6,722 adults living in the United States, we performed survey-weighted logistic regression analysis to evaluate independent associations between 2 measures of respect (involvement in decisions and treatment with dignity) and patient outcomes (satisfaction, adherence, and receipt of optimal preventive care). Then we calculated adjusted probabilities of these outcomes and performed stratified analyses to examine results across racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: After adjustment for respondents' demographic characteristics, the probability of reporting a high level of satisfaction was higher for those treated with dignity vs not treated with dignity (0.70 vs 0.38, P < .001) and for those involved in, versus not involved in, decisions (0.70 vs 0.39, P < .001). These associations were consistent across all racial/ethnic groups. Being involved in decisions was significantly associated with adherence for whites, whereas being treated with dignity was significantly associated with adherence for racial/ethnic minorities. The probability of receiving optimal preventive care was marginally greater for those treated with dignity (0.68 vs 0.63, P = .054), but did not differ with respect to involvement in decisions (0.67 vs 0.67, P = .95). CONCLUSIONS: Being treated with dignity and being involved in decisions are independently associated with positive outcomes. Although involving patients in decisions is an important part of respecting patient autonomy, it is also important to respect patients more broadly by treating them with dignity.

Adult↗