PROM Detail

Instrument on Doctor-Patient Communication Skills
  • Basic Information
  • Detailed Information
  • Domains
  • Psychometrics

Basic Information

Abbreviated name
IDPCS
Full name
Instrument on Doctor-Patient Communication Skills
Items ?
The number of questions in the survey
19
Short description
Measures patient perception of physician communication skills. Uses 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).Caputres both patient and doctor perceptions of communication.
PCCC or QoL? ?
This compendium contains patient-reported measures that are either designed to specifically measure aspects of Person Centred Co-Ordinated Care (P3C), or alternatively tools that are designed to measure some aspect of Quality of Life (QoL) or Health Related Quality of Life (hrQoL). All the measures in this compendium have been broadly categorised into one of those two concepts.
Person Centred Coordinated Care
Main Domains Measured ?
This is the key domains that the measure is targeting.
Communication skills
Type of measure ?
The measures in this compendium can take a variety of forms. Generally, they will be either Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) or Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM). However, we have also included a few measures that are completed by proxy-individual (PROXY), which are useful in instances where the respondent cannot answer directly (e.g. dementia or end of life). Sometimes, these measures can even be a composite of these types, and target both experiences and outcomes – we have labelled these measures “PROEMs”.
PREM
Respondent ?
The person that fills in the questionnaire - e.g. patient, Health Care Professional, or proxy (normally a carer or family member)
Patients
Copy of questionnaire
measure within this document

Detailed Information

Year developed ?
The year in which the measure was first published.
2007
Country developed in ?
The main country[s] in which the measure was first developed.
Canda
Original publication ?
The publication in which the measure was originally published.
Search Citations of Original Reference
Website link ?
A link to the developer of the measure, if they have a website.
measure within this document
Target condition ?
The measures can be either generic or disease specific (e.g. Diabetes, Heart Failure)
Generic
Main context tested in ?
The main context in which the measure has been developed and used (E.g. Hopital, General Practice etc).
Primary care
Main countries used in ?
The main countries in which the measure has been developed and used.
Canada, US
Target age ?
e.g. Adults, Children, Elderly
Adults
Main uses of measure ?
The context in which the measure is most often used – e.g. clinical trials; national surveys.
Assessment of communication skills between patient and physician.
Used in UK? ?
Whether the instrument has been tested and validated within a UK healthcare context.
No
Impact ?
A crude indication of the impact of the measure on academia. This is the number of times the original publication has been cited on PubMed, divided/normalised to the years since publication.
1
Language
English

Domains

Domain description
Communication skills
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
6
1
3
5
13
1
Empowerment/activation
Generic care planning
Shared decision making
Behaviour and communication skills
Information sharing
Medication

Psychometrics

Brief description ?
A brief description of the initially reported psychometric properties of the measure.
The original development paper reported that a principle components analysis indicated that 2 factors, process and content, accounted for 52% and 7% of the doctor variance and 60% and 6% of the patient variance, respectively. The linear regression showed that only gender accounted for any of the variance in ratings. Cronbach's alphas for both doctor and patient questionnaires were > or = 0.96. The G analysis provided a G = 0.98 and 0.40 (standard errors of 0.003 and 0.02) for doctors and patients, respectively. A more recent study (Stoddard, 2014) reported that The MPI demonstrated construct validity when it was used with practicing physicians; however, its validity was found to be sensitive to both the medical context (e.g. inpatient setting) and social context (e.g. adults, English speaking patients) in which it is used. Acceptability reliability was only established when a large number of responses were available.