Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication patterns of primary care physicians in the United States and the Netherlands

  • Original Articles
  • Published:
Journal of General Internal Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While international comparisons of medical practice have noted differences in length of visit, few studies have addressed the dynamics of visit exchange.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the communication of Dutch and U.S. hypertensive patients and their physicians in routine medical visits.

DESIGN: Secondary analysis of visit audio/video tapes contrasting a Dutch sample of 102 visits with 27 general practitioners and a U.S. sample of 98 visits with 52 primary care physicians.

MEASUREMENTS: The Roter Interaction Analysis System applied to visit audiotapes. Total visit length and duration of the physical exam were measured directly.

MAIN RESULTS: U.S. visits were 6 minutes longer than comparable Dutch visits (15.4 vs 9.5 min, respectively), but the proportion of visits devoted to the physical examination was the same (24%). American doctors asked more questions and provided more information of both a biomedical and psychosocial nature, but were less patient-centered in their visit communication than were Dutch physicians. Cluster analysis revealed similar proportions of exam-centered (with especially long physical exam segments) and biopsychosocial visits in the 2 countries; however, 48% of the U.S. visits were biomedically intensive, while only 18% of the Dutch visits were of this type. Fifty percent of the Dutch visits were socioemotional, while this was true for only 10% of the U.S. visits.

CONCLUSIONS: U.S. and Dutch primary care visits showed substantial differences in communication patterns and visit length. These differences may reflect country distinctions in medical training and philosophy, health care system characteristics, and cultural values and expectations relevant to the delivery and receipt of medical services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wilson A. Consultation length in general practice: a review. Br J Gen Pract. 1991;41:119–22.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilson A, McDonald P, Hayes L, Cooney J. Health promotion in the general practice consultation: a minute makes a difference. BMJ. 1992;304:227–34.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. van den Brink-Muinen A, Verhaak PFM, Bensing JM, et al. The Eurocommunication Study. Utrecht: NIVEL; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Blumenthal D, Causino N, Chang YC, et al. The duration of ambulatory visits to physicians. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:264–71.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiggers JH, Sanson-Fisher R. Duration of general practice consultations: association with patient occupational and educational status. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:925–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Roland MO, Bartholomew J, Courtenay MJ, Morris RW, Morrell DC. The “five minute” consultation: effect of time constraint on verbal communication. Br Med J Clin Res Ed. 1986;292:874–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grieve S. Time availability in the consultation. Br J Gen Pract. 1990;40:167–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Howie JG, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M. Measuring quality in general practice. Pilot study of a needs, process and outcome measure. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 1997;i–xii:1–32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wilson AD. Consultation length: general practitioners’ attitudes and practices. BMJ. 1985;290:1322–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Howie JGR, Porter AMD, Forbes JF. Quality and the use of time in general practice: widening the discussion. BMJ. 1989;298:1008–10.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bensing JM. Doctor-patient communication and the quality of care. An observation study into affective and instrumental behavior in general practice. Dissertation. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Utrecht: NIVEL; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Robinson JW, Roter DL. Counseling by primary care physicians of patients who disclose psychosocial problems. J Fam Pract. 1999;48:698–705.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Anderson SO, Mattsson B. Length of consultations in general practice in Sweden: views of doctors and patients. Fam Pract. 1989;6:130–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rashid A, Forman W, Jagger C, Mann R. Consultations in general practice: a comparison of patients’ and doctors’ satisfaction. BMJ. 1989;299:1015–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Howie JGR, Porter AMD, Heaney DJ, Hopton JL. Long to short consultation ratio: a proxy measure of quality of care for general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1991;41:48–54.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hull FM, Hull FS. Time and the general practitioner: the patient’s view. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1984;34:71–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Morrell DC, Evans ME, Morris RW. The “five-minute” consultation: effect of time constraint on clinical content and patient satisfaction. BMJ. 1986;292:870–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Gandek B, Rogers W, Ware JE. Characteristics of physicians with participatory decision-making styles. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:497–504.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Ridsdale L, Carruthers M, Morris R, Ridsdale J. Study of the effect of time availability on the consultation. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989;39:488–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Knight R. The importance of list size and consultation length as factors in general practice. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1987;37:553–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Carr-Hill R, Jenkins-Clarke S, Dixon P, Pringle M. Do minutes count? Consultation lengths in general practice. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3:207–13.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson SO, Mattsson B. Features of good consultation in general practice: is time important? Scand J Prim Health Care. 1994;12:227–32.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mead N, Bower P. Measuring patient-centeredness: a comparison of three observation-based instruments. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39:71–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Roter DL, Hall JA. Doctors Talking to Patients/Patients Talking to Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Westport, Conn: Auburn House; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;152:1423–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Stewart M, Brown JB, Weston WW, McWhinney IR, McWilliam CL, Freeman TR. Patient-Centered Medicine: Transforming the Clinical Method. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Little P, Everitt H, Williamson I, et al. Preferences of patients for patient centered approach to consultation in primary care: observational study. BMJ. 2001;322:468–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam SM, Lipkin M, Stiles W, Inui TS. The patient-physician relationship. Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA. 1997;277:350–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Mishler EG. The Discourse of Medicine: Dialectics of Medical Interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex; 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roter DL. The enduring and evolving nature of the patient-physician relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39:5–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Engel GL. How much longer must medicine’s science be bound by a seventeenth century world view? In: White K, ed. The Task of Medicine: Dialogue at Wickenburg. Menlo Park, Calif: The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McWhinney I. The need for a transformed clinical method. In: Stewart M, Roter D, eds. Communicating with Medical Patients. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Suchman AL, Markakis K, Beckman HB, Frankel R. A model of empathic communication in the medical interview. JAMA. 1997;277:678–82.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Starfield B. Health systems’ effects on health status-financing vs the organization of services. Am J Public Health. 1995;85:1350–1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Verhaak PFM. Detection of psychologic complaints by general practitioners. Med Care. 1988;26:1009–20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Roter DL, Hall JA, Kern DE, Barker R, Cole KA, Roca RP. Improving physicians’ interviewing skills and reducing patients’ emotional distress. Arch Intern Med. 1995;155:1877–84.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Roter D, Larson S. The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS): utility and flexibility for analysis of medical interactions. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;46:243–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bensing JM, Dronkers J. Instrumental and affective aspects of physician behavior. Med Care. 1992;30:283–97.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ong LML, Visser MRM, Kruijver IPM, et al. The Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) in oncological consultations: psychometric properties. Psychooncology. 1998;7:387–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Roter D, Hall J, Katz N. Relations between physicians’ behaviors and patients’ satisfaction, recall, and impressions: an analogue study. Med Care. 1987;25:399–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hall J, Roter D, Katz N. Task versus socioemotional behaviors in physicians. Med Care. 1987;25:437–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Forrest CB, Whelan E. Primary care safety net delivery sites in the United States. JAMA. 2000;284:2077–83.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Grol R. To Heal or to Harm. The Prevention of Somatic Fixation in General Practice. London: Royal College of General Practitioners; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  44. LHV (Dutch National Organization of General Practitioners). Basic Job Description for the General Practitioner. Utrecht: LHV; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mokkink HGA, Schellekens CMAM, Tielens VCL. Consultduur in de huisartspraktijk. Een studie naar de consultduur in relatie tot patiënt- en klachtkenmerken, en de kwaliteit van het handelen van de huisarts. [Consultation length in general practice, related to patient and complaint characteristics and quality of care]. Huisarts en Wet. 1993;36:285–90.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mechanic D, McAlpine DD, Rosenthal M. Are patients’ office visits with physicians getting shorter? N Engl J Med. 2001;344:198–204.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. van den Brink-Muinen A, Verhaak PFM, Bensing JM. The EUROCommunication Study. An International Comparative study in Six European Countries on Doctor-Patient Communication in General Practice. Utrecht: NIVEL; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hulsman RL, Ros WJG, Winnubst JAM, Bensing JM. Teaching clinically experienced physicians communication skills. A review of evaluation studies. Med Educ. 1999;33:655–68.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NIVEL, Netherlands Institute of Primary Health Care, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Jozien M. Bensing PhD

  2. School of Hygiene and Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md

    Debra L. Roter PhD

  3. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Robert L. Hulsman PhD

Authors
  1. Jozien M. Bensing PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Debra L. Roter PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert L. Hulsman PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jozien M. Bensing PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bensing, J.M., Roter, D.L. & Hulsman, R.L. Communication patterns of primary care physicians in the United States and the Netherlands. J GEN INTERN MED 18, 335–342 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10735.x

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.10735.x

Key words

Search

Navigation