Healthcare communication distress scale: Pilot factor analysis and validity. Issue 7 (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Lum, Michelle; Garnett, Michelle; Sheridan, Judith; O'Connor, Erin; Meuter, Renata
• Is Part Of: Patient education and counseling. Volume 103:Issue 7(2020)
• Page Start: 1302
• Page End: 1310
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Communication distress -- Patient-practitioner communication -- Patient-centred -- Primary healthcare; Patient education -- Periodicals; Health counseling -- Periodicals; Health education -- Periodicals; Counseling -- Periodicals; Patient Education -- Periodicals; Éducation des patients -- Périodiques; Counseling -- Périodiques; Éducation sanitaire -- Périodiques; 615.5071
• DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.010
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0738-3991

Abstract

Highlights: Proposes a new patient self-report measure of patient-practitioner communication. Two subscales measure emotional responses to healthcare communication experiences. Communication distress and environmental arousal are new communication constructs. Both constructs have good internal consistency, face validity, and validity. Environmental arousal is an important predictor of patients' communication distress. Abstract: Objective: To develop psychometrically an evidence-based, patient-centred measure of patient-practitioner communication. We explored the underlying constructs of a self-report questionnaire measuring adult patients' enduring perceptions of their emotional experiences when communicating with primary healthcare practitioners. Methods: A cross-sectional on-line survey included 16 items from a piloted questionnaire, as well as existing measures of generalised anxiety, psychological distress, and body vigilance. Exploratory factor analysis and hierarchical multiple regression were used to explore underlying constructs in an Australian sample (N = 220). Results: A 6-item communication distress factor and a 3-item environmental arousal factor were supported, indicating good face validity and internal consistency. Bivariate correlations support convergent and discriminant validity for both factors. Hierarchical analysis exploring predictors of communication distress included sex, age, and chronic condition status; and scores on body vigilance, anxiety, distress, and environmental arousal in healthcare. Environmental arousal was the most important significant predictor of communication distress. Conclusion: The patient communication questionnaire can be developed into a brief scale to measure patient distress associated with engaging with, and communicating in, healthcare settings. Practice implications: A brief self-report measure to identify patients' communication distress and environmental arousal could assist in clinical practice and provide useful data in healthcare communication research.