IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v2y2022i2p191-214.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Patient‐Provider Relationships in an All‐Inclusive Specialized Geriatric Program: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study among Older Foreign‐Born Latinos with Multimorbidities

Author

Listed:
  • Rosana L. Bravo
  • Ángela Gutiérrez
  • Lené F. Levy‐Storms

Abstract

Objective The quality of patient‐provider relationships (PPR) is directly related to delivering patient‐centered care and improved healthcare outcomes (e.g., adherence to medical treatments) and differs across types of patients to the point of health disparities. PPRs are further complicated when factoring in multiple chronic health conditions, language barriers, and limited time. This qualitative longitudinal study explored the perceived acquiring of high‐quality PPR among older foreign‐born Latinos over time. Methods We recruited 13 patients with multi‐morbidities from nine Program of All‐Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE) centers. Researchers conducted three rounds of in‐depth interviews in Spanish (N=39 interviews) over 13 months. The first interviews were conducted face‐to‐face and lasted one hour on average. The second and third were conducted over the phone and ranged from 60 to 90 minutes. Data were analyzed using line‐by‐line in vivo coding, identifying categories, and themes. Results Patients reported their perceived PPR as a continuum across time, establishing three hypothesized hierarchical developmental levels to the PPR: the good doctor, the doctor of trust, and the advocate. The layers of levels built upon each other. The first level, the good doctor, was the most superficial as it focused on the physicians' technical expertise. The second level, the doctor of trust demonstrated trustworthy characteristics over time. The third level, the advocate, embodied all that a person of trust was plus an additional advocacy dimension. Conclusion Unique study characteristics allowed for an exploration of PPRs. Findings elucidate factors (e.g., expertise, trust, advocacy) that contribute to the development of strong PPRs. To enhance PPRs, strategies should be considered to develop trust and advocate for patients' needs. Objetivo La calidad de las relaciones paciente‐proveedor (PPR) está directamente relacionada con la prestación de atención centrada en el paciente y la mejora de los resultados de la atención médica (p. ej., cumplimiento de los tratamientos médicos) y difiere entre los tipos de pacientes hasta el punto de las disparidades en la salud. Los PPR se complican aún más cuando se tienen en cuenta múltiples condiciones de salud crónicas, barreras del idioma y tiempo limitado. Este estudio longitudinal cualitativo exploró la adquisición percibida de PPR de alta calidad entre latinos mayores nacidos en el extranjero a lo largo del tiempo. Métodos Reclutamos a 13 pacientes con multimorbilidades de nueve centros del Programa de atención integral para ancianos (PACE). Los investigadores realizaron tres rondas de entrevistas en profundidad en español (N=39 entrevistas) durante 13 meses. Las primeras entrevistas se realizaron cara a cara y duraron una hora en promedio. El segundo y el tercero se realizaron por teléfono y duraron entre 60 y 90 minutos. Los datos se analizaron usando codificación in vivo línea por línea, identificando categorías y temas. Resultados: Los pacientes informaron su PPR percibido como un continuo a lo largo del tiempo, estableciendo tres niveles de desarrollo jerárquicos hipotéticos para el PPR: el buen médico, el médico de confianza y el defensor. Las capas de niveles construidos unos sobre otros. El primer nivel, el buen médico, era el más superficial ya que se centraba en la experiencia técnica de los médicos. El segundo nivel, el médico de confianza demostró características de confianza a lo largo del tiempo. El tercer nivel, el defensor, encarnaba todo lo que una persona de confianza era más una dimensión adicional de defensa. Conclusión Las características únicas del estudio permitieron una exploración de los PPR. Los hallazgos aclaran los factores (p. ej., experiencia, confianza, promoción) que contribuyen al desarrollo de PPR sólidos. Para mejorar los PPR, se deben considerar estrategias para desarrollar la confianza y defender las necesidades de los pacientes. 目的:患者‐医疗提供者关系(PPR)的质量与提供以患者为中心的护理和改善医疗结果(例如,药物治疗依从性)直接相关,并且会因不同患者类型而出现健康差异。当考虑到多种慢性病状况、语言障碍和有限的时间时,PPR变得更加复杂。本文采取定性纵向研究,探究了外国出生的老年拉美裔人对获取高质量PPR的感知随时间推移发生的变化。方法:我们从9个老年人全面护理计划(PACE)中心招募了13名患有多种疾病的患者。研究人员在13个月内用西班牙语进行了三轮深度访谈(N=39)。第一轮访谈是面对面进行的,平均持续一个小时。第二轮和第三轮访谈是通过电话进行的,时间从60分钟到90分钟不等。使用逐行内部编码(in vivo coding)、识别类别和主题,从而进行数据分析。结果:患者将其对PPR的感知报告为具有时间跨度的连续体,为PPR建立了三个假设的阶层式发展层面:好医生、可信赖的医生和倡导者。各层面彼此依赖。第一个层面(好医生)是最表面的,因为它侧重于医生的技术专长。第二个层面(可信赖的医生)随时间推移表现出值得信赖的特征。第三个层面(倡导者)体现了可信赖的人,再加上额外的倡导维度。结论:独特的研究特征允许探究PPR。研究发现阐明了一系列有助于发展稳固的PPR的因素(例如,专业知识、信任、倡导)。为加强PPR,应考虑相关策略来建立信任和倡导患者需求。

Suggested Citation

  • Rosana L. Bravo & Ángela Gutiérrez & Lené F. Levy‐Storms, 2022. "Patient‐Provider Relationships in an All‐Inclusive Specialized Geriatric Program: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study among Older Foreign‐Born Latinos with Multimorbidities," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 191-214, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:191-214
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.2.2.7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.2.2.7
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.2.2.7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, W.J. & Chapman, M.V. & Lee, K.M. & Merino, Y.M. & Thomas, T.W. & Payne, B.K. & Eng, E. & Day, S.H. & Coyne-Beasley, T., 2015. "Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: A systematic review," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 105(12), pages 60-76.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chapman, Mimi V. & Hall, William J. & Lee, Kent & Colby, Robert & Coyne-Beasley, Tamera & Day, Steve & Eng, Eugenia & Lightfoot, Alexandra F. & Merino, Yesenia & Simán, Florence M. & Thomas, Tainayah , 2018. "Making a difference in medical trainees' attitudes toward Latino patients: A pilot study of an intervention to modify implicit and explicit attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 202-208.
    2. Brian D. Schwartz & Alexis Horst & Jenifer A. Fisher & Nicole Michels & Lon J. Van Winkle, 2020. "Fostering Empathy, Implicit Bias Mitigation, and Compassionate Behavior in a Medical Humanities Course," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-15, March.
    3. Carla Brailey & Brittany C. Slatton, 2024. "Centering Black Women’s Voices: Illuminating Systemic Racism in Maternal Healthcare Experiences," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-12, May.
    4. Mark R. Umbricht & Frank Fernandez & Guillermo Ortega, 2023. "The Blind Side of College Athletics: Examining California’s Student Athlete Bill of Rights and Athletic Expenditures," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(1), pages 33-57, February.
    5. Bastos, João L. & Harnois, Catherine E. & Paradies, Yin C., 2018. "Health care barriers, racism, and intersectionality in Australia," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 209-218.
    6. Jill Furzer & Boriana Miloucheva, 2020. "The Long Arm of the Clean Air Act: Pollution Abatement and COVID-19 Racial Disparities," Working Papers tecipa-668, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    7. Abeliansky, Ana Lucia & Erel, Devin & Strulik, Holger, 2019. "Aging in the USA: Similarities and disparities across time and space," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 384, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    8. Levchenko, Yuliana, 2021. "Aging into disadvantage: Disability crossover among Mexican immigrants in America," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    9. Shelton, Katherine H. & Haddock, Geoffrey & Ottaway, Heather, 2018. "The attitudes of medical professionals toward children and children at risk of separation from parents in Eastern Europe," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 26-33.
    10. Wael Sabbah & Aswathikutty Gireesh & Malini Chari & Elsa K. Delgado-Angulo & Eduardo Bernabé, 2019. "Racial Discrimination and Uptake of Dental Services among American Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-8, May.
    11. Riikka Lämsä & Anu E. Castaneda & Anneli Weiste & Marianne Laalo & Päivikki Koponen & Hannamaria Kuusio, 2020. "The Role of Perceived Unjust Treatment in Unmet Needs for Primary Care Among Finnish Roma Adults," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-15, August.
    12. Evrosina I. Isaac & Andrea R. Meisman & Kirstin Drucker & Stephanie Violante & Kathryn L. Behrhorst & Alfonso Floyd & Jennifer M. Rohan, 2020. "The Relationship between Health Disparities, Psychosocial Functioning and Health Outcomes in Pediatric Hematology-Oncology and Stem Cell Transplant Populations: Recommendations for Clinical Care," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-14, March.
    13. Damon Centola & Douglas Guilbeault & Urmimala Sarkar & Elaine Khoong & Jingwen Zhang, 2021. "The reduction of race and gender bias in clinical treatment recommendations using clinician peer networks in an experimental setting," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    14. Dongjuan Xu & Greg Arling, 2023. "Are Frail Older People from Racial/Ethnic Minorities at Double Jeopardy of Putting off Healthcare during the Pandemic?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    15. Dominique H. Como & Lucía I. Floríndez & Christine F. Tran & Sharon A. Cermak & Leah I. Stein Duker, 2020. "Examining unconscious bias embedded in provider language regarding children with autism," Nursing & Health Sciences, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 197-204, June.
    16. Olivia Rochelle Joseph & Stuart W. Flint & Rianna Raymond-Williams & Rossby Awadzi & Judith Johnson, 2021. "Understanding Healthcare Students’ Experiences of Racial Bias: A Narrative Review of the Role of Implicit Bias and Potential Interventions in Educational Settings," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-15, December.
    17. George B Cunningham & Lisa T Wigfall, 2020. "Race, explicit racial attitudes, implicit racial attitudes, and COVID-19 cases and deaths: An analysis of counties in the United States," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-14, November.
    18. Anja Mayer & Vital Da Silva Domingues & Inga Hege & Andrzej A. Kononowicz & Marcos Larrosa & Begoña Martínez-Jarreta & Daloha Rodriguez-Molina & Bernardo Sousa-Pinto & Małgorzata Sudacka & Luc Morin, 2022. "Planning a Collection of Virtual Patients to Train Clinical Reasoning: A Blueprint Representative of the European Population," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(10), pages 1-15, May.
    19. Penner, Louis A. & Harper, Felicity W.K. & Dovidio, John F. & Albrecht, Terrance L. & Hamel, Lauren M. & Senft, Nicole & Eggly, Susan, 2017. "The impact of Black cancer patients' race-related beliefs and attitudes on racially-discordant oncology interactions: A field study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 99-108.
    20. Jessica Naidu & Elizabeth Oddone Paolucci & Tanvir Chowdhury Turin, 2022. "Racism as a Social Determinant of Health for Newcomers towards Disrupting the Acculturation Process," Societies, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-10, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:191-214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.