Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background: Patient enablement is described as patient’s ability to understand and cope with illness after a consultation. The purpose of this study was to analyze factors associated with enablement in Finnish primary health care. An additional aim was to evaluate whether a single question could be used to measure enablement. Methods: A questionnaire survey was addressed to Finnish general practitioners (GPs) within the Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study framework. A trained fieldworker contacted nine patients for every participating GP. Two to 9 patients per GP (median 9 patients) completed the questionnaire. Patient enablement was measured by a single question based on the Patient Enablement Instrument questionnaire. Multivariate and multilevel analyses were performed to find variables that have an independent association with patient enablement. Results: A total of 1196 patients completed the QUALICOPC questionnaire. A total of 898 patients (75.1%) agreed that they felt better able to cope with their health problem or illness after an appointment with a GP, reflecting patient enablement. In the theme group analyses, 11 factors were found to have a statistically significant (P < .05) association with enablement. In the final multivariable model, positive perceptions of doctor-patient communication and patient satisfaction were positively associated with enablement. Conclusions: The results, using a single question to measure enablement, are comparable to previous findings on factors associated with enablement. Further research is needed and these results should be regarded as preliminary.

Keywords

patient enablement general practice/family medicine Finland primary health care patient satisfaction

Introduction

Patient enablement is defined as the patient’s ability to understand and cope with life and illness after a consultation with a general practitioner (GP).^1-4 Although the concept of enablement is not completely consistent across studies,⁵ in a review by Anden et al,⁶ it is regarded as 1 of the 7 main concepts used to describe and evaluate GPs’ consultations. Patient enablement is suggested to be a good patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) measuring the quality of care in primary health care.^2,5-7

As a concept, enablement is paralleled with empowerment, which, in the field of health care, is seen as a process in which the patient develops, for example, skills, knowledge, and confidence in health-related decisions.⁸ Empowerment is defined one of the core competencies of patient-centeredness by WONCA Europe.⁹ Although empowerment is often used as a synonym for enablement, it is suggested that empowerment is an educational process, while enablement is more comprehensive since it includes managing and coping with illness.⁵ Empowerment can also be achieved by the patients themselves,¹⁰ whereas enablement is regarded more as a result of consultation.^1,2,5

There are studies indicating that patient enablement leads to better clinical outcomes. In one study, enablement was positively associated with asthma balance adjustment and quality of life.¹¹ Among patients with type II diabetes, enablement has been associated with lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and body mass index (BMI) levels.¹²

A study by Mercer et al¹³ categorizes factors influencing enablement into patient, consultation, and system factors. Among patient factors, study results with regard to the patient’s age are contradictory.^2,3,14,15 Patients with different ethnic backgrounds report different enablement perceptions than natives.^2,3 A worse state of health¹³ and the presence of a chronic illness^3,13 have been associated with lower patient enablement.

A recent review of 24 studies indicated that the length of the consultation was one of the most investigated factors, being positively correlated with enablement in 8 out of 9 studies.⁵ The patient’s partnership with the doctor,^16,17 the GP’s communication skills,^3,18,19 a more person-centered approach,^15,19,20 and patient involvement in decision making^19,21 may promote enablement. In addition, enablement is related to patient satisfaction.⁵

When regarding system factors, continuity of care has been positively associated with enablement in several studies.^2,3,15 Moreover, larger GP practice sizes² and poorer access to care²² have been negatively associated with enablement.

Previous studies have shown that there could be cultural differences in terms of enablement both between different ethnic groups inside countries^2,3 and between countries.^23,24 To our knowledge, there are only a few studies on enablement in the Nordic countries: 2 studies have been conducted in Sweden^21,25 and 1 doctoral thesis in Finland has touched on enablement in a minor way.²⁶

In terms of measuring enablement in general practice, Howie et al¹ have developed the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI), a 6-item, 3-scale questionnaire about patients’ perceptions of their ability to understand, cope, and manage with their illnesses and lives after a consultation. PEI has been widely used in studies conducted in several countries.^{2,15,20,23-26} There is also a 3-item version of PEI available,³ which has been used in 2 large studies.^14,22 Furthermore, in the international Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study (the QUALICOPC study design was approved in October 2011 by the Ethics Committee of the Tampere Region (permission number R11153), a single question, “Think about the doctor you visited today. Do you agree the following? ‘After this visit, I feel I can cope better with my health problem/illness than before’,” was designed based on the PEI questionnaire.²⁷

The aim of this study was to investigate patient enablement measured by one question presented after a GP appointment at a primary health care center in Finland. We will analyze factors associated with patient enablement, and by comparing with earlier studies, we try to evaluate, if a single question method can be used to measure enablement.

Methods

We used Finnish data collected for the international QUALICOPC study, which is targeted to evaluate the primary health care systems of 31 European countries plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The background and the design of the QUALICOPC study as well as the international process of developing the study questionnaires is described elsewhere.^27,28 The original questionnaires were translated from English to Finnish and validated by back translation to English.

According to the QUALICOPC study design, the goal was to reach 220 GPs in each country and nine patients for each GP to fill out the Patient Experience questionnaire. The Finnish data were collected in 2012. The purpose was to get a random sample of Finnish GPs; postal questionnaire was sent to 700 GPs using the register of Finnish Medical Association. Unfortunately, the response rates were so low that complementary recruitments, that is, sending questionnaires to GP specialist trainees in Pirkanmaa Hospital District area and contacting health centers directly, were needed. The process of gathering the study sample is presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Gathering of the study sample of Finnish general practitioners (GPs) and their patients for the QUALICOPC study.

Ultimately, a total of 139 GPs (one GP per health center/station) agreed to participate in the study according to the protocol. The patients were recruited by a trained fieldworker. Over a period of 1 day, a fieldworker asked all the patients visiting the participating GP to fill out the questionnaire in printed form, immediately after the appointment. Two to 9 patients per GP were recruited, altogether 1196, with a median of nine patients and a mean of 8.6 patients.

We measured patient enablement with the question “Think about the doctor you visited today. Do you agree the following? ‘After this visit, I feel I can cope better with my health problem/illness than before’.” The answer alternatives were yes/no/don’t know. Before the analysis, “don’t know” responses were combined with the “no” responses.

Based on the existing literature on factors that may affect patient enablement, we included a large number of variables in our analyses. The questions in the QUALICOPC study questionnaire were distributed in theme groups, presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Numbers of Questions in QUALICOPC Study Distributed Into Theme groups.

	No. of Questions
Patient factors
Age	1
Gender	1
Chronic illness	1
State of health	1
Ethnicity	2
Education	1
Income	1
Working status	1
Consultation factors
Doctor-patient communication	4
Patient satisfaction	5
Previous experience	10
Health promotion	1
Discrimination	5
Practice safety	4
System factors
Access to care	2
Continuity of care	4

The themes “previous experience” and “health promotion” were designed by the authors; these were not included in the original QUALICOPC design. There is no direct research on the link between previous experience and enablement, but previous experience—particularly negative “surprises” in care—is known to influence patient satisfaction.²⁹ Furthermore, discussing health promotion issues with the doctor was an independent predictor of patient enablement in one study.²⁰

In the statistical analysis (IBM SPSS, version 23), descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation were used to find the variables showing the strongest association on patient enablement. The variables were first tested with bivariate logistic regression analysis. Next, because of the large number of variables, forward-stepwise, multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed using theme groups. All statistically significant (P < .05) factors in the theme group analyses were included in the final multivariable model, which was performed with the enter method to find the variables with an independently significant association on enablement. Finally, to consider potential variation of enablement depending on GP level, multilevel modeling was used, that is, generalized linear mixed-effect models were fitted using a function glmer in the R Software environment for statistical computing and graphics, version 2.13.0; a random intercept was used to account for the variation in the number of patients per GP.

Results

A total of 1196 patients completed the QUALICOPC Patient Experience questionnaire. The distributions of the demographic factors are presented in Table 2. The mean age of the patients was 59 years (range 18-97 years), and 51.5% were older than 65 years. In response to the item “After this visit, I feel I can cope better with my health problem/illness than before,” the patients’ answers were distributed thus: 898 patients (75.1%) selected “yes,” 36 patients (3.0%) selected “no,” 233 patients (19.5%) selected “don’t know,” and 29 (2.4%) answers were missing.

Table 2.

Distribution of the Demographic Factors (n = 1196).

Factor	n (%)
Age, years
<30	95 (7.9)
30-49	227 (19.0)
50-69	467 (39.0)
≥70	389 (32.5)
Missing	18 (1.5)
Gender
Male	430 (36.0)
Female	761 (63.6)
Missing	5 (0.4)
Chronic illness
No	354 (29.6)
Yes	836 (69.9)
Missing	6 (0.5)
State of health (patient’s opinion)
Very good	55 (4.6)
Good	412 (34.4)
Fair	617 (51.6)
Poor	109 (9.1)
Missing	3 (0.3)
Land of birth
Finland	1,171 (97.9)
Other country	17 (1.4)
Missing	8 (0.7)
Language skills
Fluent/native speaker	1,097 (91.7)
Sufficient/moderate/poor/none	87 (7.3)
Missing	12 (1.0)
Education
Preprimary, primary, or no qualifications	757 (63.3)
Upper secondary level	313 (26.2)
Postsecondary or higher	105 (8.8)
Missing	21 (1.8)
Income
Below average	477 (39.9)
About average	625 (52.3)
Above average	81 (6.8)
Missing	13 (1.1)
Working status
Working, family business, civil service	291 (24.3)
Student, unemployed, mainly homemaker, or unable to work due to illness	218 (18.2)
Retired	679 (56.8)
Missing	8 (0.7)

In the bivariate analyses, 19 statistically significant factors (P < .05) were found (data not shown). Among patient factors, state of health and ethnicity/language skills were significant. Among consultation factors, significant factors included variables reflecting doctor-patient communication (4 questions), patient satisfaction (4 questions), and previous experience (1 question on health promotion, 1 question on discrimination, and 3 questions on practice safety). Among system factors, all 4 questions reflecting continuity of care were significant.

Results of the multivariate theme group analyses are presented in Table 3. All 11 statistically significant (P < .05) factors in these analyses were entered in the final multivariable model, the results of which are presented in Table 4. All models were adjusted for age and gender. In the final model, the strongest positive association was found with questions reflecting patient satisfaction and doctor-patient communication. The strongest variable reflected patient satisfaction (a “yes” answer to the question “This doctor doesn’t just deal with medical problems but can also help with personal problems,” odds ratio [OR] 3.42, 95% CI 2.40-4.85, P < .001). In addition, patient’s lower level of language skills had a negative association with the dependent variable. The interpretation of the results did not change after taking into account the clustered nature of the data by multilevel modeling.

Table 3.

Results of the Multivariable Theme Group Analyses on the Patients’ Perceived Enablement Measured by a Single Question, Yes/No^a (All Models Include Age and Gender).

Factor/Question	n	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P
Patient factors
Model 1: All the demographic factors (9 factors), n = 1119
Language skills	Fluent 1036 / Not fluent 83	0.54^b	0.34-0.87	.012
Model 2: Demographic factors significant in the bivariate analysis (state of health, language skills, income), n = 1137
Language skills	Fluent 1053 / Not fluent 84	0.55^b	0.34-0.88	.013
Consultation factors
Model 3: Doctor-patient communication (5 questions), n = 1148
Age	1148	1.009/y^b	1.00-1.02	.023
The doctor hardly looked at me when we talked	No 1026 / Yes 122	0.56^b	0.37-0.85	.006
The doctor asked questions about my health problem	No 106 / Yes 1042	2.76^b	1.81-4.19	<.001
Model 4: Patient satisfaction (5 questions), n = 1097
I would recommend this doctor to a friend or relative	No 39 / Yes 1058	4.05^b	2.07-7.94	<.001
This doctor doesn’t just deal with medical problems but can also help with personal problems	No 624 / Yes 473	3.43^b	2.48-4.76	<.001
Model 5: Previous experience/discrimination (5 questions), n = 1114
The doctor or staff member acted negatively toward you (in the past 12 months)	No 1020 / Yes 94	0.61^b	0.38-0.96	.033
Model 6: Previous experience/practice safety (4 questions), n = 1121
In past 2 years, has a GP from this practice ever asked you about all the medication you take (also those prescribed by other doctors)?	No 512 / Yes 609	1.44^b	1.09-1.91	.010
Model 7: Previous experience (10 questions), n = 1090
In the past 12 months, has a GP from this practice talked to you about how to stay healthy (for instance, about diet, alcohol, or smoking)?	No 637 / Yes 453	1.47^b	1.09-1.97	.011
System factors
Model 8: Access to care (2 questions), n = 930
No significant factors found
Model 9: Continuity of care (4 questions), n = 1110
The doctor had my medical records to hand	No 63 / Yes 1047	1.77^b	1.02-3.06	.042
This doctor knows important information about my medical background	No 178 / Yes 932	1.60^b	1.09-2.33	.016
This doctor knows about my living situation	No 441 / Yes 669	1.90^b	1.38-2.55	<.001

“No” includes “don’t know” responses.

Statistically significant.

Table 4.

Results of the Final Multivariable Model,^a Patient-Perceived Enablement Measured by a Single Question, Yes/No.^b

	n	Odds Ratio	95% CI	P
Patient factors
Language skills	Fluent 1004 / Not fluent 77	0.54^c	0.32-0.93	.027
Consultation factors
Doctor-patient communication: The doctor asked questions about my health problem	No 94 / Yes 987	2.39^c	1.49-3.83	<.00
Patient satisfaction: I would recommend this doctor to a friend or relative	No 38 / Yes 1043	2.65^c	1.27-5.54	.010
Patient satisfaction: This doctor doesn’t just deal with medical problems but can also help with personal problems	No 620 / Yes 461	3.15^c	2.17-4.58	<.001

Model includes factors significant in the multivariable theme group analyses, adjusted for age and gender (altogether 13 factors), n = 1081.

“No” includes “don’t know” responses.

Statistically significant.

Discussion

According to this questionnaire study using Finnish QUALICOPC data, approximately three-quarters of the respondents agreed they felt better able to cope with their health problem or illness after a consultation with a GP, reflecting patient enablement. In our final multivariable model, none of the system factors and only one of the patient factors, namely language skills, had a significant association with enablement. Of the consultation factors, aspects of patient satisfaction and doctor-patient communication had a statistically significant association with patient enablement.

In this study, many results were parallel to previous studies that used longer versions of PEI.^{1-5,14,18,20,26} For instance, positive answers to questions reflecting patient satisfaction (“I would recommend this doctor to a friend or a relative” and “This doctor doesn’t just deal with the medical problems but can also help with personal problems”) had the strongest positive association on enablement. This finding is consistent with previous studies that found patient satisfaction to be associated with enablement.^4,5 Although the relationship between enablement and patient satisfaction is close, they are regarded as separate concepts.^2,4,6 Patient satisfaction is considered to be influenced by the fulfilment of the patient’s expectations,^29,30 while enablement is considered to be less dependent of expectations.^18,31 A patient might feel satisfied with the care received without feeling enabled, and possibly vice versa. In addition, the patient’s perception that the doctor is able to deal with other problems than just medical ones may reflect the GP’s holistic approach and good patient-doctor partnership, which have been suggested to promote enablement.^16,17,20

Furthermore, there is evidence of an association between doctor-patient communication and enablement.^3,18,26 Especially doctor’s empathy has been strongly associated with enablement.^13,32 In this study, the question “The doctor asked questions about my health problem” showed a rather strong positive association with enablement. It seems reasonable that if the patient feels the doctor is interested in his or her present issue, feelings of ability, confidence, and coping are more likely to be achieved. It is noteworthy that 106 patients (10.2%) answered “no” to this question. This is rather a large proportion, indicating that there may be room for improvement in doctor-patient communication during GP appointments.

When considering patient factors influencing enablement in our study, none of the demographic factors besides patient’s language skills were significant. In previous studies, patient speaking other languages have provided higher scores of enablement compared with natives.^2,3 In our study, speaking Finnish not fluently had a negative association with enablement, which may imply that those patients have had difficulties when communicating with doctors. Challenges in language and communication might lead to misunderstandings between doctor and patient and thus harm the ongoing process of care.

Strengths and Limitations

The survey data were collected to examine core aspects of primary health care on a large scale. Patient enablement was not the main focus of the survey, which limits the opportunities of the investigation. On the other hand, the diverse questionnaire made it possible to take into account multiple factors influencing patient enablement. In earlier studies, one limitation in multivariable and multilevel modeling has been the large number of missing values, meaning that not all of the respondents could be included in analyses.^3,33 One strength of our study is that despite the large number of variables, there were few missing values and the majority of the respondents (90.5%) could be included in the multivariable analysis. This suggests good quality data and acceptability of the questions. However, the data collection method in this survey might cause a potential cluster effect because answers could vary depending on individual GPs; we took this into account with the multilevel modeling.

This study was supposed be based on a random sample of Finnish GPs and their patients. Unfortunately, the response rate remained exceptionally low like in many other countries in the QUALICOPC study.³⁴ The response rate among GPs varied a lot between countries (from 6% to 79 %), and the goal of getting a random sample of GPs realized only in two-thirds of the countries.³⁴ Possibly GPs did not want to participate because they did not want their patients to be involved in the process. In Finland, we had to use complementary data collection techniques. The difficulties in the GP recruitment process could have distorted the sample; for example, the participating GPs might have had more positive attitude toward research.

However, the current sample of patients includes a large number of patients from both urban and rural areas. There were patients from all the age groups and the age distribution correlates well with the national register profile of all the patients who used Finnish health centers in year 2013.³⁵ We therefore regard that the sample represented the overall situation in Finland fairly well. Because of the completing data collection methods needed, only geographical representativeness may have suffered with emphasis placed on the situation in western Finland.

Our dependent variable (“Think about the doctor you visited today. Do you agree the following? ‘After this visit, I feel I can cope better with my health problem/illness than before’”) was a single question with no Likert-scale answer alternatives. A similar approach has been used before; Rohrer et al. measured empowerment with a single question¹⁹. Furthermore, Mead et al¹⁴ used the categorization “not enabled” (PEI score 0) vs “enabled” (PEI score other than 0) in their study. Nevertheless, this question has not been used before and its validity in measuring enablement has not been tested. However, the results of our study, while comparable to earlier studies, encourage us to continue studying this question.

There is evidence that a shorter, 3-item version of PEI is as reliable as measuring enablement with the 6-item questionnaire,³ which supports the idea that also a single question based on PEI could be used for measuring enablement. Nevertheless, our dependent question—as well as PEI itself in the Finnish context—needs further investigation to determine reliability and validity.

Conclusions

Demands and needs in health care are increasing rapidly due to growing wealth, information, and knowledge. Therefore, it is important to focus on processes and procedures that have real impacts—particularly benefits—on the patient’s life and health. It is important to find outcomes for measuring clinical practice. In addition, if the patient achieves feelings of ability and better coping after seeing a doctor, it is significant in itself. Good patient satisfaction and doctor-patient communication are associated with higher enablement. This confirms the idea that we should devote to better doctor-patient interaction, in order to achieve better patient outcomes. Because of the characteristics of the data, the findings of this study should be considered preliminary. We will continue with further investigations on enablement and its measurement by a single question.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

The data that support the findings of this study are available from NIVEL (The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research) but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors on reasonable request and with permission of NIVEL.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research summarized in this supplement is part of the European QUALICOPC study, which is coordinated by NIVEL (The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research) and funded as part of the European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement 242141. This study was financially supported by the Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility Area of Tampere University Hospital (grant numbers 9N030 and 9R024). We also thank Finnish Association for General Practice (SYLY) for financing this article.

Author Biographies

Elina Tolvanen, MD, is a doctoral student of medicine in University of Tampere. Her PhD thesis includes research on quality of care in primary health care, special emphasis on patient enablement. She is a specialist in General Practice and works as a GP in Pirkkala municipal health center.

Tuomas H. Koskela, MD, specialist in General Practice and PhD is a general practitioner and a part-time salaried editor for the EBMeDS electronic Decision Support system script editing team. He is Elina Tolvanen’s supervisor in her PhD project.

Mika Helminen, MSc, is a biostatistician in the Science Centre of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District.

Elise Kosunen, MD, PhD, is the professor of General Practice in Faculty of Medicine and Life Sciences of University of Tampere, Finland. She is Elina Tolvanen’s supervisor in her PhD project.

References

Howie

Heaney

Maxwell

Measuring quality in general practice. pilot study of a needs, process and outcome measure. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 1997;(75):i-xii, 1-32.

Howie

JGR

Heaney

Maxwell

Walker

Freeman

Rai

. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ. 1999;319:738-743.

Mead

Bower

Roland

Factors associated with enablement in general practice: Cross-sectional study using routinely-collected data. Br J Gen Pract. 2008;58:346-352.

Howie

JGR

Heaney

Maxwell

Walker

. A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15:165-171.

Frost

Currie

Cruickshank

An integrative review of enablement in primary health care. J Prim Care Community Health. 2015;6:264-278.

Andén

Andersson

Rudebeck

Concepts underlying outcome measures in studies of consultations in general practice. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2006;24:218-223.

Weenink

Braspenning

Wensing

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in primary care: an observational pilot study of seven generic instruments. BMC Fam Pract. 2014;15:88.

Mola

De Bonis

Giancane

Integrating patient empowerment as an essential characteristic of the discipline of general practice/family medicine. Eur J Gen Pract. 2008;14:89-94.

The European Definition of General Practice/Family Medicine. Wonca Europe 2011. http://www.woncaeurope.org/sites/default/files/documents/Definition%203rd%20ed%202011%20with%20revised%20wonca%20tree.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2017.

10.

Holmström

Röing

The relation between patient-centeredness and patient empowerment: a discussion on concepts. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;79:167-172.

11.

Haughney

Cotton

Rosen

J-

Morrison

Price

The use of a modification of the patient enablement instrument in asthma. Prim Care Respir J. 2007;16:89-92.

12.

Lee

Siu

Leung

Lau

Chan

Wong

KK.

General practice and social service partnership for better clinical outcomes, patient self efficacy and lifestyle behaviours of diabetic care: randomised control trial of a chronic care model. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87:688-693.

13.

Mercer

Jani

Maxwell

Wong

Watt

GC.

Patient enablement requires physician empathy: a cross-sectional study of general practice consultations in areas of high and low socioeconomic deprivation in Scotland. BMC Fam Pract. 2012;13:6.

14.

Mead

Bower

Hann

The impact of general practitioners’ patient-centredness on patients’ post-consultation satisfaction and enablement. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:283-299.

15.

Pawlikowska

Nowak

Szumilo-Grzesik

Walker

JJ.

Primary care reform: a pilot study to test the evaluative potential of the patient enablement instrument in poland. Fam Pract. 2002;19:197-201.

16.

Hudon

St-Cyr Tribble

Bravo

Poitras

ME.

Enablement in health care context: a concept analysis. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17:143-149.

17.

Hudon

St-Cyr Tribble

Bravo

Hogg

Lambert

Poitras

ME.

Family physician enabling attitudes: a qualitative study of patient perceptions. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:8.

18.

Pawlikowska

Zhang

Griffiths

van Dalen

van der Vleuten

Verbal and non-verbal behavior of doctors and patients in primary care consultations—how this relates to patient enablement. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;86:70-76.

19.

Rohrer

Wilshusen

Adamson

Merry

Patient-centredness, self-rated health, and patient empowerment: should providers spend more time communicating with their patients?

J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14:548-551.

20.

Little

Everitt

Williamson

et al . Observational study of effect of patient centredness and positive approach on outcomes of general practice consultations. BMJ. 2001;323:908-911.

21.

Wensing

Wetzels

Hermsen

Baker

Do elderly patients feel more enabled if they had been actively involved in primary care consultations?

Patient Educ Couns. 2007;68:265-269.

22.

Kelly

Egbunike

Kinnersley

et al . Delays in response and triage times reduce patient satisfaction and enablement after using out-of-hours services. Fam Pract. 2010;27:652-663.

23.

Lam

Yuen

Mercer

Wong

A pilot study on the validity and reliability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) in a Chinese population. Fam Pract. 2010;27:395-403.

24.

Ozvacic Adzic

Katic

Kern

Lazic

Cerovecki Nekic

Soldo

. Patient, physician, and practice characteristics related to patient enablement in general practice in Croatia: cross-sectional survey study. Croat Med J. 2008;49:813-823.

25.

Rööst

Zielinski

Petersson

Strandberg

EL.

Reliability and applicability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) in a Swedish general practice setting. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16:31.

26.

Kuusela

Yleislääkärin vastaanottotapahtuma—näkökulmia laatuun. (GP’s consultation—perspective on quality.) turun yliopisto, lääketieteellinen tiedekunta, yleislääketiede ja kansanterveystiede. Turun Yliopisto, Finland: University of Turku; 2014.

27.

Schäfer

Boerma

Kringos

et al . QUALICOPC, a multi-country study evaluating quality, costs and equity in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12:115.

28.

Schäfer

Boerma

Kringos

et al . Measures of quality, costs and equity in primary health care instruments developed to analyse and compare primary care in 35 countries. Qual Prim Care. 2013;21:67-79.

29.

Crow

Gage

Hampson

et al . The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6:1-244.

30.

Sitzia

Wood

Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1829-1843.

31.

Brusse

Yen

LE.

Preferences, predictions and patient enablement: a preliminary study. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:116-122.

32.

Mercer

Higgins

Bikker

et al . General practitioners’ empathy and health outcomes: a prospective observational study of consultations in areas of high and low deprivation. Ann Fam Med. 2016;14:117-124.

33.

Pawlikowska

Walker

Nowak

Szumilo-Grzesik

Patient involvement in assessing consultation quality: A quantitative study of the patient enablement instrument in poland. Health Expect. 2010;13:13-23.

34.

Groenewegen

Greß

Schäfer

General practitioners’ participation in a large, multicountry combined general practitioner-patient survey: recruitment procedures and participation rate. Int J Fam Med. 2016;2016:4929432. doi:10.1155/2016/4929432

35.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos (THL). Perusterveydenhuolto 2013; primärvård 2013; primary health care services 2013. ISSN: 1798-0887; Tilastoraportti - Statistikrapport—Statistical report. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2014111846346.

Patient Enablement After a Single Appointment With a GP: Analysis of Finnish QUALICOPC Data

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Conclusions

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Author Biographies

References