Patient satisfaction with primary care: an observational study comparing anthroposophic and conventional care

Esch, Barbara M; Marian, Florica; Busato, André; Heusser, Peter (2008). Patient satisfaction with primary care: an observational study comparing anthroposophic and conventional care. Health and quality of life outcomes, 6, p. 74. London: BioMed Central 10.1186/1477-7525-6-74

[img]
Preview
Text
2.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY).

Download (364kB) | Preview

BACKGROUND: This study is part of a cross-sectional evaluation of complementary medicine providers in primary care in Switzerland. It compares patient satisfaction with anthroposophic medicine (AM) and conventional medicine (CON). METHODS: We collected baseline data on structural characteristics of the physicians and their practices and health status and demographics of the patients. Four weeks later patients assessed their satisfaction with the received treatment (five items, four point rating scale) and evaluated the praxis care (validated 23-item questionnaire, five point rating scale). 1946 adult patients of 71 CON and 32 AM primary care physicians participated. RESULTS: 1. Baseline characteristics: AM patients were more likely female (75.6% vs. 59.0%, p < 0.001) and had higher education (38.6% vs. 24.7%, p < 0.001). They suffered more often from chronic illnesses (52.8% vs. 46.2%, p = 0.015) and cancer (7.4% vs. 1.1%). AM consultations lasted on average 23,3 minutes (CON: 16,8 minutes, p < 0.001). 2. Satisfaction: More AM patients expressed a general treatment satisfaction (56.1% vs. 43.4%, p < 0.001) and saw their expectations completely fulfilled at follow-up (38.7% vs. 32.6%, p < 0.001). AM patients reported significantly fewer adverse side effects (9.3% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.003), and more other positive effects from treatment (31.7% vs. 17.1%, p < 0.001). Europep: AM patients appreciated that their physicians listened to them (80.0% vs. 67.1%, p < 0.001), spent more time (76.5% vs. 61.7%, p < 0.001), had more interest in their personal situation (74.6% vs. 60.3%, p < 0.001), involved them more in decisions about their medical care (67.8% vs. 58.4%, p = 0.022), and made it easy to tell the physician about their problems (71.6% vs. 62.9%, p = 0.023). AM patients gave significantly better rating as to information and support (in 3 of 4 items p [less than or equal to] 0.044) and for thoroughness (70.4% vs. 56.5%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: AM patients were significantly more satisfied and rated their physicians as valuable partners in the treatment. This suggests that subject to certain limitations, AM therapy may be beneficial in primary care. To confirm this, more detailed qualitative studies would be necessary.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

13 Central Units > Vice-Rectorate Quality > Office for Gender Equality
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute for Evaluative Research into Orthopaedic Surgery
04 Faculty of Medicine > Medical Education > Institute of Complementary Medicine (ICOM)

UniBE Contributor:

Marian, Florence; Busato, André and Heusser, Peter

ISSN:

1477-7525

ISBN:

18826582

Publisher:

BioMed Central

Language:

English

Submitter:

Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 15:07

Last Modified:

09 Dec 2014 05:21

Publisher DOI:

10.1186/1477-7525-6-74

PubMed ID:

18826582

Web of Science ID:

000260336700001

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.29096

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/29096 (FactScience: 137656)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback