Aims
To find out why patients delay treatment.
Procedures
The study was carried out in 4 clinics in a large inner city of the USA – 93 patients in total
Interviewers approached patients, who were there to report a new symptom or complaint = 45 minutes of questions
They were asked:
- When they first noticed the symptom
- When they decided they were ill
- When they decided to seek medical help.
- A series of other questions – factors that may have contributed to their choices.
Findings
Mean total delay – 14 days
Key factors:
- Presence of severe pain + whether patients had read about symptoms – affected appraisal delay
- Whether the symptom was new, imagined consequences and gender – affected illness delay.
- Cost of treatment, pain of symptoms and perceived curing – affected utilisation delay
Conclusions:
Three stages of delay:
- Appraisal delay – the time taken to interpret a symptom as an indicator of illness.
- Illness delay – the time taken between realising that they are ill and seeking medical assistance.
- Utilisation delay – the time taken between deciding to seek help and doing so.
Strengths:
- Reliable – the study is reliable because it was carried out in 4 different clinics, where the method used was consistent, therefore if it was to be replicated it would likely have the same results.
- Sample – the sample was mixed, having people from different ages, genders and races. Therefore, there would be a decreased possibility that the results were affected by gender or cultural bias. This makes them more generalisable and applicable to the wider population.
- Useful – the study is useful for doctors as they can find factors to help people seek treatment faster and more easily.
Weaknesses:
- Ethics – the questions asked to the patients were personal, therefore they may have felt distressed to answer questions revealing their possible illness. Also, they may have felt stupid to feel or think a certain way.
- Sample – the sample was rather small even if the research was carried out at 4 clinics. This decreases the generalisability of the results as it cannot be said they were due to the environment.
- Self-reports – the method is subjective and unreliable. Social desirability may have affected the answers of the patients.
CIE A Level Psychology 
In the great design of things you’ll receive a B- for effort and hard work. Exactly where you actually confused everybody ended up being on your facts. You know, people say, details make or break the argument.. And it could not be more accurate right here. Having said that, allow me tell you just what did work. Your authoring can be extremely powerful which is probably the reason why I am making an effort in order to opine. I do not make it a regular habit of doing that. 2nd, while I can easily see the jumps in logic you come up with, I am not certain of just how you appear to connect your ideas which inturn make the conclusion. For the moment I will subscribe to your position but hope in the foreseeable future you link your facts better.
LikeLike
Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your articles? I mean, what you say is important and everything. Nevertheless think about if you added some great photos or video clips to give your posts more, “pop”! Your content is excellent but with pics and clips, this site could undeniably be one of the best in its niche. Terrific blog!
LikeLike
Pingback: Misusing Health Services | CIE A Level Psychology