Document Type : Original Article
Authors
Department of Family Medicine, Dicle University Medical Faculty, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Biopsychosocial approach suggests that the individual’s health condition
is partly influenced by the interactions of biological, psychological, and social processes. It also
concludes that the clinical method should be patient‑centered, which is based on the physician’s
involvement in the patient’s world and the physician’s ability to see the illness from the patient’s view.
In this study, we aimed to determine the extent to which medical faculty assistant doctors use the
biopsychosocial approach in their clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study is a cross‑sectional type, descriptive, and analytical
research. The sample size consisted of assistant doctors who met the inclusion criteria which were
accepted to participate in the study between December 1, 2017, and March 1, 2018, at the medical
faculty hospital of Dicle University. Two hundred and three physicians participated in our study. The
Patient–Physician Orientation Scale (PPOS), The Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JSPE),
and a survey study including questions in relation with sociodemographic characteristics were
conducted in our study. The reliability of the Patient–Physician Orientation Scale (PPOS) and JSPE
used in our study was tested with Cronbach’s alpha and found to be 0.878 and 0.931, respectively.
Questionnaires were administered by a face‑to‑face interview method during interview. Information
on the purpose and method of the study was given.
RESULTS: A total of 203 physicians participated in our study. One hundred and forty‑three (70%)
participants were male and 60 (30%) were female. According to medical disciplines, eight
physicians (3, 9%) from psychiatry, 21 (10, 3%) from family medicine, 104 (51, 2%) from other
internal medical disciplines, and 70 (34, 5%) from surgical medical disciplines participated in the
study. In the first subgroup of the PPOS, which is used in our study, the average score of psychiatry
physicians was 3.67 ± 0.99, family medicine assistant doctors 3.92 ± 0.67, other internal medical
disciplines 3.98 ± 0.65, and surgical medical discipline 3.83 ± 0.61. In the second subgroup, which is
defined as the care in the same scale, the average score of psychiatry assistant doctors was found
to be 3.20 ± 0.45, family medicine assistant doctors 3.68 ± 0.54, other internal medical disciplines
3.49 ± 0.60, and surgical medical discipline 3.68 ± 0.58. The results of the Jefferson Scale used to
determine the level of empathy in our study are found as psychiatry 78.25 ± 14.78, family physician
67.71 ± 14.69, other internal medical disciplines 72.03 ± 13.46, and surgical medical discipline
70.87 ± 15.24.
CONCLUSIONS: The biopsychosocial approach is primarily an elementary approach model in
medical discipline such as family medicine and should be applied to other internal and surgical
medical disciplines as well. With conducting this study, the awareness of this area will be increased
and related issues in the literature will be enriched.
Keywords
of illnesses in primary care: A hermeneutic literature review.
J Family Med Prim Care 2018;7:497‑500.
2. Lena VK. Individualised Care and Rehabilitation. Cham:
Individualized Care Springer; 2019. p. 151‑62.
3. Yilmaz A, Ucmak F, Dönmezdil S, Kaya MC, Tekin R,
Günes M, et al. Somatosensory amplification, anxiety, and
depression in patients with hepatitis B: Impact on functionality.
Medicine (Baltimore) 2016;95:e3779.
4. Krupat E, Rosenkranz SL, Yeager CM, Barnard K, Putnam SM,
Inui TS, et al. The practice orientations of physicians and patients:
The effect of doctor‑patient congruence on satisfaction. Patient
Educ Couns 2000;39:49‑59.
5. Sanson‑Fisher R, Hobden B, Carey M, Mackenzie L, Hyde L,
Shepherd J. Interactional skills training in undergraduate medical
education: Ten principles for guiding future research. BMC Med
Educ 2019;19:144.
6. Street RL Jr., Makoul G, Arora NK, Epstein RM. How does
communication heal? Pathways linking clinician‑patient
communication to health outcomes. Patient Educ Couns
2009;74:295‑301.
7. Hojat M, Louis DZ, Markham FW, Wender R, Rabinowitz C,
Gonnella JS, et al. Physicians’ empathy and clinical outcomes for
diabetic patients. Acad Med 2011;86:359‑64.
8. Hojat M, Mangione S, Nasca TJ, Gonnella JS, Magee M. Empathy
scores in medical school and ratings of empathic behavior in
residency training 3 years later. J Soc Psychol 2005;145:663‑72.
9. AudetAM, DavisK, SchoenbaumSC. Adoption of patient‑centered
care practices by physicians: Results from a national survey. Arch
Intern Med 2006;166:754‑9.
10. Di Lillo M, Cicchetti A, Lo Scalzo A, Taroni F, Hojat M. The
Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy: Preliminary psychometrics
and group comparisons in Italian physicians. Acad Med
2009;84:1198‑202.
11. Dowrick C, May C, Richardson M. Bundred P. The biopsychosocial
model of general practice: Rhetoric or reality? Br J Gen Pract
1996;46:105-7.
12. Kataoka HU, Koide N, Hojat M, Gonnella JS. Measurement and
correlates of empathy among female Japanese physicians. BMC
Med Educ 2012;12:48.
13. Wahlqvist M, Gunnarsson RK, Dahlgren G, Nordgren S.
Patient‑centred attitudes among medical students: Gender and
work experience in health care make a difference. Med Teach
2010;32:e191‑8.
14. Abiola T, Udofia O, Abdullahi AT. Patient‑doctor relationship:
The practice orientation of doctors in Kano. Niger J Clin Pract
2014;17:241‑7.
15. Tavakol S, Dennick R, Tavakol M. Empathy in UK medical
students: Differences by gender, medical year and specialty
interest. Educ Prim Care 2011;22:297‑303.
16. Karaoglu N. Not being stone‑hearted. communication
skills – Empathy and family medicine. Actual Med 2009;17:53‑5.
17. Teke AK, Cengiz E, Demir C. The measurement of empathic
characteristics of physicians and their changes according
to demographic variables. Cukurova Univ J Inst Soc Sci
2010;19:505‑16.
18. Street RL Jr. Gender differences in health care provider‑patient communication: Are they due to style, stereotypes, or
accommodation? Patient Educ Couns 2002;48:201‑6.
19. Newton BW, Savidge MA, Barber L, Cleveland E, Clardy J,
Beeman G, et al. Differences in medical students’ empathy. Acad
Med 2000;75:1215.
20. Roter DL, Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Larson SM, Doksum T. Effects
of obstetrician gender on communication and patient satisfaction.
Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:635‑41.
21. DiLalla LF, Hull SK, Dorsey JK; Department of Family and
Community Medicine, Southern Illinois University School of
Medicine, Carbondale 62901, USA. ldilalla@siu.edu. Effect of
gender, age, and relevant course work on attitudes toward
empathy, patient spirituality, and physician wellness. Teach Learn
Med 2004;16:165‑70.
22. Shariat SV, Eshtad E, Ansari S. Empathy and its correlates in
Iranian physicians: A preliminary psychometric study of the
Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy. Med Teach 2010;32:e417‑21.
23. Chen DC, Kirshenbaum DS, Yan J, Kirshenbaum E, Aseltine RH.
Characterizing changes in student empathy throughout medical
school. Med Teach 2012;34:305‑11.
)