Informing patients on planned consultation time – a randomised controlled intervention study of consultation time in primary care

References

• Jönsson B. Vad är tid och 100 andra jätteviktiga frågor [What is time and 100 other really important questions]. Stockholm: Bokförlaget Langenskiöld; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Bergstrand O. Hur behåller man och lockar läkare till primärvården? [How to keep and to attract physicians to primary care?] [Internet]; 2014; [cited 2018 Jul]. Available from: http://www.distriktslakaren.se/sites/default/files/lockar_lakare_till_primarvarden_2014-09.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ogden J, Bavalia K, Bull M, et al. “I want more time with my doctor”: a quantitative study of time and the consultation. Fam Pract. 2004;21(5):479–483.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevens R, Mountford A. On time. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60(575):458–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cape J. Consultation length, patient-estimated consultation length, and satisfaction with the consultation. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(485):1004–1006.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson S-O, Mattsson B. Features of good consultation in general practice: is time important?. Scand J Primary Health Care. 1994;12(4):227–232.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Al-Abbad H. Gender differences in consultation time and its relation to patient's satisfaction: a cross-sectional study at King Khalid University Primary Health Care Clinics in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. MEJFM. 2015;13(2):18–31.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson S-O, Mattsson B. Length of consultations in general practice in Sweden: views of doctors and patients. Fam Pract. 1989;6(2):130–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson L, Bloor K, Birks Y, et al. Effect of physicians' gender on communication and consultation length: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(4):242–248.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson L, Bloor K, Hewitt C. The effect of physician gender on length of patient consultations: observational findings from the UK hospital setting and synthesis with existing studies. J R Soc Med. 2015;108(4):136–141.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson A, Childs S. The relationship between consultation length, process and outcomes in general practice: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2002;52(485):1012–1020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sans-Corrales M, Pujol-Ribera E, Gene-Badia J, et al. Family medicine attributes related to satisfaction, health and costs. Fam Pract. 2006;23(3):308–316.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centred consultations and outcomes in primary care: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;48(1):51–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mead N, Bower P, Hann M. The impact of general practitioners' patient-centredness on patients' post-consultation satisfaction and enablement. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(2):283–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart M, Brown JB, Boon H, et al. Evidence on patient–doctor communication. Cancer Prev Control. 1999;3(1):25–30.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423–1433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Derksen F, Bensing J, Lagro-Janssen A. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. Br J Gen Pract. 2013;63(606):e76–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson AD, Childs S. Effects of interventions aimed at changing the length of primary care physicians' consultation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;Jan 25:CD003540.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards A, Elwyn G, Hood K, et al. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Fam Pract. 2004;21(4):347–354.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington J, Noble LM, Newman SP. Improving patients' communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;52(1):7–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griffin SJ, Kinmonth AL, Veltman MW, et al. Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials. Ann Fam Med. 2004;2(6):595–608.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pendleton D, Schofield T, Tate P, et al. The consultation: an approach to learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen J-H. Patientsamtalet: handbok i mötet mellan läkare och patient [The patient consultation: handbook to the meeting between physician and patient]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Larsen JH, Risor O, Putnam S. P-R-A-C-T-I-C-A-L: a step-by-step model for conducting the consultation in general practice. Fam Pract. 1997;14(4):295–301.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howie J, Heaney DJ, Maxwell M, et al. A comparison of a patient enablement instrument (PEI) against two established satisfaction scales as an outcome measure of primary care consultations. Fam Pract. 1998;15(2):165–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wensing M, Mainz J, Grol R. A standardised instrument for patient evaluations of general practice care in Europe. Eur J Gen Pract. 2000;6(3):82–87.
   Google Scholar
• Rööst M, Zielinski A, Petersson C, et al. Reliability and applicability of the patient enablement instrument (PEI) in a Swedish general practice setting. BMC Fam Pract. 2015;16(1):31.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Meakin R, Weinman J. The ‘Medical interview satisfaction scale’(MISS-21) adapted for British general practice. Fam Pract. 2002;19(3):257–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Attkisson CC, Greenfield T. The client satisfaction questionnaire (CSQ) scales outcome assessment in clinical practice. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1995.
   Google Scholar
• Kinnersley P, Stott N, Peters T, et al. A comparison of methods for measuring patient satisfaction with consultations in primary care. Fam Pract. 1996;13(1):41–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar