Savage and Armstrong (1990)

Aims:

 To compare the patient-centred style with the doctor-centred style led by a general practitioner on patients; satisfaction.

Procedures:

Random sample of 359 patients, from the ages of 16 to 75 – asked to give their consent to have the consultation recorded.

The satisfaction was measured by two questionnaires asking about the quality of the communication and any thoughts – one was taken immediately, one a week later.

Findings:

 Overall high level of satisfaction in both conditions:

• Higher for doctor -centred style (directly) – more satisfaction with the explanation of doctor and with one understanding of the problem/
• Directed group – more likely to report they had been ‘greatly helped’.

Conclusions:

The results suggest that the directing style had a better effect in terms of patient satisfaction as measured by their perception of the doctor’s understanding of the problem, the quality of the doctor’s explanation and the subjective improvement one week later.

It provides evidence that authoritarianism and certainty are elements that satisfy patients.

Strength:

• Random selection – the participants were selected randomly, therefore this ensures that there was no bias in choosing and ensures objectivity.
• Ecological validity – the study was carried out in a real setting with real patients.
• Informed consent – patients gave consent to participate in the study, meaning that it was ethical.

 Weaknesses:

• Individual differences – the study may not take individual differences into account because the results were averaged, therefore they cannot be generalised to everyone.
• Demand characteristics – the participants may have put the same information in the second questionnaire because they might have felt like they had to in order to please the researchers and not criticise their doctor.