J Korean Med Sci.  2016 Jul;31(7):1027-1036. 10.3346/jkms.2016.31.7.1027.

Quasi-Experiment Study on Effectiveness Evaluation of Health Communication Strategies

• Song DJ
• Choi JW
• Kim K
• Kim MS
• Moon JM

• KMID: 2373719
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2016.31.7.1027

Abstract

This experimental study examined differences in doctor-patient relationships according to the health communication strategies during cases of medical malpractices occurred at primary medical institution. A total of 116 subjects aged in their 20s-50s was sampled. The first medical malpractice scenario chosen was the medical malpractice case most frequently registered at the Korean Medical Association Mutual Aid and the second scenario was associated with materials and devices as the cause of malpractice. Four types of crisis communication strategy messages were utilized, consisting of denial, denial + ingratiation, apology, and apology + ingratiation. Subjects were classified into four research groups by crisis communication strategy to measure levels of trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction, before and after the occurrence of medical malpractice and application of communication strategies. The findings of this study revealed that the apology strategy, compared with the denial strategy, showed a smaller difference before and after the application of communication strategies in all variables of trust (F = 8.080, F = 5.768), control mutuality (F = 8.824, F = 9.081), commitment (F = 9.815, F = 8.301), and satisfaction (F = 8.723, F = 5.638). Further, a significant interaction effect was shown between variables. The apology strategy, compared with the denial strategy, was effective in the improvement of doctor-patient relationships in both Scenarios I and II. For Scenario I, the apology strategy without ingratiation boosted commitment and satisfaction, but for Scenario II, utilizing the apology strategy with ingratiation boosted the effectiveness of trust and commitment.

Keyword

Medical Malpractice; Crisis Communication; Health Communication Strategies

MeSH Terms

Adult
Female
*Health Communication
Humans
Male
Malpractice
Middle Aged
Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Patient Satisfaction
Physician-Patient Relations
Program Evaluation
Surveys and Questionnaires
Trust

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Research model design.

• 

  Fig. 2 Comparison of relationship scales between groups and time. Group A, Denial; Group B, Denial + Ingratiation; Group C, Apology; Group D, Apology + Ingratiation. * P < 0.01.

Reference

1. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development;2013. p. 83–134.

2. World Health Organization. The Second Global Patient Safety Challenge: Safe Surgery Saves Lives. Geneva: World Health Organization;2008. p. 4–6.

3. Nabi RL. Exploring the framing effects of emotion: do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference? Communic Res. 2003; 30:224–247.

4. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press;2000. p. 1–2.

5. Berlin L. Will saying “I'm sorry” prevent a malpractice lawsuit? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006; 187:10–15.

6. Itoh K, Andersen HB. Patient reactions to staff apology after adverse event and changes of their views in four year interval. In : Palanque P, Vanderdonckt J, Winckler M, editors. Human Error, Safety and Systems Development: Lecture Notes in Computer Science Volume 5962. Berlin: Springer;2010. p. 28–43.

7. Fritzsche PJ. Communication: the key to improved patient care. Radiology. 2005; 234:13–14.

8. Beach MC, Roter DL, Wang NY, Duggan PS, Cooper LA. Are physicians' attitudes of respect accurately perceived by patients and associated with more positive communication behaviors? Patient Educ Couns. 2006; 62:347–354.

9. Mellor AC, Milgrom P. Dentists' attitudes toward frustrating patient visits: relationship to satisfaction and malpractice complaints. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1995; 23:15–19.

10. Nazione S, Pace K. An experimental study of medical error explanations: do apology, empathy, corrective action, and compensation alter intentions and attitudes? J Health Commun. 2015; 20:1422–1432.

11. Beck RS, Daughtridge R, Sloane PD. Physician-patient communication in the primary care office: a systematic review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2002; 15:25–38.

12. Newsome PR, Wright GH. A review of patient satisfaction: 2. Dental patient satisfaction: an appraisal of recent literature. Br Dent J. 1999; 186:166–170.

13. Carmack HJ. Bearing witness to the ethics of practice: storying physicians' medical mistake narratives. Health Commun. 2010; 25:449–458.

14. Wertz EK, Kim S. Cultural issues in crisis communication: a comparative study of messages chosen by South Korean and US print media. J Commun Manag (Lond). 2010; 14:81–94.

15. An SK, Gower KK, Cho SH. Level of crisis responsibility and crisis response strategies of the media. J Commun Manag (Lond). 2011; 15:70–83.

16. Coombs WT. The value of communication during a crisis: insights from strategic communication research. Bus Horiz. 2015; 58:141–148.

17. Grappi S, Romani S. Company post-crisis communication strategies and the psychological mechanism underlying consumer reactions. J Public Relat Res. 2015; 27:22–45.

18. Coombs WT. Ongoing Crisis Communication: Planning, Managing, and Responding. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage;1991. p. 24–231.

19. Coombs WT. Designing post-crisis messages: lessons for crisis response strategies. Rev Bus. 2000; 21:37–41.

20. Robbennolt JK. Apologies and medical error. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467:376–382.

21. Coombs WT, Holladay SJ. The negative communication dynamic: exploring the impact of stakeholder affect on behavioral intentions. J Commun Manag (Lond). 2007; 11:300–312.

22. Lee BK. Audience-oriented approach to crisis communication: a study of Hong Kong consumers' evaluation of an organizational crisis. Communic Res. 2004; 31:600–618.

23. Hon LC, Grunig JE. Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations;1999. p. 2–11.

24. Botha E, van der Waldt DL. Relationship antecedents that impact on outcomes of strategic stakeholder alliances. Afr J Bus Manag. 2010; 4:1629–1638.

25. Wallace E, Lowry J, Smith SM, Fahey T. The epidemiology of malpractice claims in primary care: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2013; 3:e002929.

26. Mazor KM, Simon SR, Gurwitz JH. Communicating with patients about medical errors: a review of the literature. Arch Intern Med. 2004; 164:1690–1697.

27. Elsbach KD. Accounts, excuses, and apologies: a theory of image restoration strategies by William L. Benoit. Adm Sci Q. 1997; 42:584–586.

28. Liebman CB, Hyman CS. A mediation skills model to manage disclosure of errors and adverse events to patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004; 23:22–32.

29. Claeys AS, Cauberghe V, Vyncke P. Restoring reputations in times of crisis: an experimental study of the situational crisis communication theory and the moderating effects of locus of control. Public Relat Rev. 2010; 36:256–262.

30. Noland C, Carl WJ. “It's not our ass”: medical resident sense-making regarding lawsuits. Health Commun. 2006; 20:81–89.

31. Hannawa AF. Negotiating medical virtues: toward the development of a physician mistake disclosure model. Health Commun. 2009; 24:391–399.

32. Crouch EA, Wilson R, Zeise L. The risks of drinking water. Water Resour Res. 1983; 19:1359–1375.

33. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication. The relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997; 277:553–559.

34. Harris CR, Jenkins M, Glaser D. Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men? Judgm Decis Mak. 2006; 1:48–63.

35. Leikas S, Lindeman M, Roininen K, Lähteenmäki L. Food risk perceptions, gender, and individual differences in avoidance and approach motivation, intuitive and analytic thinking styles, and anxiety. Appetite. 2007; 48:232–240.

36. Evans G, Durant J. The relationship between knowledge and attitudes in the public understanding of science in Britain. Public Underst Sci. 1995; 4:57–74.

37. Peak JS. Types of apology ad messages and public's response. Korean J Advert Public Relat. 2006; 8:184–229.