Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the "consultation and relational empathy" (CARE) measure at the example of cancer patients;Psychometrische evaluation der deutschen version des messinstruments "consultation and relational empathy" (CARE) am beispiel von krebspatienten

PPmP Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie

Volumn 58, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 5-15

  Neumann, Melanie ^a   Wirtz, Markus ^b   Bollschweiler, Elfriede ^c   Warm, Mathias ^c   Wolf, Jürgen ^d   Pfaff, Holger ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^d University of Cologne

Author keywords

Cancer; CARE measure; Confirmatorical factor analysis (CFA); Patient reported assessment; Physician empathy; Structural equation modelling (SEM)

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; EMPATHY; GERMANY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL PRACTICE; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY;

EID: 38849126070     PISSN: 09372032     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-970791     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Kappauf HW. Kommunikation in der Onkologie. Der Hautarzt 2004; 55: 709-714
2. DiBlasi Z, Harkness E, Ernst E et al. Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet 2001; 357: 757-762
3. Arora NK. Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 791-806
4. Stewart MA. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A Review. CMAJ 1995; 152: 1423-1433
5. Stewart M, Brown JB, Donner A et al. The impact of patient-centred care on outcomes. J Fam Prac 2000; 49: 796-804
6. Dixon DM, Sweeney KG, Gray DJPP. The physician healer: ancient magic or modern science? Br J Gen Pract 1999; 49: 309-312
7. Usherwood T. Understanding the Consultation: Evidence, Theory and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999
8. Rees-Lewis JC. Patients views on guality of care in general practice: literature review. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 655-671
9. Roter DL, Stewart M, Putnam S et al. Communication patterns of primary care physicians. JAMA 1997; 277: 350-356
10. Nightingale S, Yarnold PGM. Sympathy, empathy, and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. J Gen Intern Med 1991; 6: 420-423
11. Kim SS, Kaplowitz S, Johnston MV. The effects of physician empathy on patient satisfaction and compliance. Eval Health Prof 2004; 27: 237-251
12. Levinson W, Gorawa-Bhat R, Lamb J. A study of patient clues and physician responses in primary care and surgical settings. JAMA 2000; 284: 1021-1027
13. Howie JGR, Heaney DJ, Maxwell MWJJ et al. Quality at general practice consultations: cross sectional survey. BMJ 1999; 319: 738-743
14. Price S, Mercer SW, MacPherson H. Practitioner empathy, patient enablement and health outcomes: A prospective study of acupuncture patients. Patient Educ and Couns 2006; 63: 239-245
15. Zachariae R, Pedersen C, Jensen A et al. Association of perceived physician communication style with patient satisfaction, distress, cancer-related self-efficacy, and perceived control over disease. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: 658-665
16. Suchman A, Roter D, Green M, Lipkin MJ. Physician satisfaction with primary care office visits. Collaborative Study Group of the American Academy on Physician and Patient. Med Care 1993; 31: 1083-1092
17. Maguire P, Pitceathly C. Key communication skills and how to acquire them. BMJ 2002; 325: 697-700
18. Simon D, Schorr G, Wirtz M et al. Development and first validation of the Shared decision-making Questionnaire (SDM-Q). Patient Educ and Couns 2006; 63: 319-327
19. Scheibler F, Freise D, Pfaff H. Die Einbeziehung von Patienten in die Behandlung. Validierung der deutschen PICS-Skalen. J Public Health 2004; 12: 199-209
20. Scheibler F, Pfaff H. Shared Decision-Making. Der Patient als Partner im medizinischen Entscheidungsprozess. Weinheim, München: JuventaVerlag, 2003
21. Ernst J, Schwarz R, Krauß O. Shared decision making bei Tumorpatienten. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie. J Public Health 2004; 12: 123-131
22. Pfaff H. Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen: Theoretischer Rahmen, Konstrukte und Messinstrumente. In: Pfaff H, Freise D, Mager G, Schrappe M (Hrsg): Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF): Entwicklung und Validierung eines Fragebogens zur Erfassung der Einbindung des Patienten als Kotherapeuten. Sankt Augustin: Asgard-Verlag, 2003: 7-27
23. Pfaff H, Steffen P, Brinkmann A et al. Der Kölner Patientenfragebogen (KPF). Kennzahlenhandbuch. Veröffentlichungsreihe der Abteilung Medizinische Soziologie des Instituts füt Arbeitsmedizin, Sozialmedizin und Sozialhygiene der Universität zu Köln: ISSN 1618-7067, 2004
24. Mercer SW, Reynolds WJ. Empathy and quality of care. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: S9-13
25. Mercer SW, Reilly D. A qualitative study of patients views on the consultation at the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. Patient Educ and Couns 2004; 53: 13-18
26. Mercer SW, Maxwell M, Heaney D, Watt GC. The Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure: development and preliminary validation and reliability of an empathy-based consultation process measure. Fam Prac 2004; 21: 1-6
27. Mercer SW, McConnachie A, Maxwell M et al. Relevance and practical use of the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) Measure in general practice. Fam Prac 2005; 22: 328-334
28. Mercer SW. Using the CARE Measure in Secondary Care. Pilot study report to the Centre for Change and Innovation. Scottish Executive Health Department (unpublished document), 2005
29. Lienert GA, Raatz U. Testaufbau und Testanalyse. 6. Auflage. Weinheim: Psychologische Verlags Union, 1998
30. Bortz J, Döring N. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer, 1995
31. Morse J, Anderson G, Bottorff J. Exploring empathy: a conceptual fit for nursing practice? Image J Nurs Sch 1992; 24: 273-280
32. Rogers C. Entwicklung der Persönlichkeit. Psychotherapie aus der Sicht eines Therapeuten. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 2004
33. Halpern J. From Detached Concern to Empathy. Humanizing Medical Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001
34. Coulehan J, Platt F, Egner B et al. "Let me see if I have this right". Words that build empathy. Ann Intern Med 2001; 135: 221-227
35. Coyne I. ITC Test Adaption Guidelines. 2005; www.intestcom.org 05/2006
36. Prüfer P, Rexroth M. Zwei-Phasen-Pretesting. ZUMA-Arbeitsbericht 2000/08, 2000
37. Mittag O, Böhmer S, Deck R et al. Fragen über Fragen: cognitive survey in der Fragebogenentwicklung. Soz Präventivmed 2003; 48: 55-64
38. Dillman DA. Mail and Telephone Surveys. The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1978
39. Dillman DA. Mail and Internet Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2000
40. Arbuckle JL, Wothke W. AMOS 4.0 User's Guide. Chicago, Illinois: Small-Waters Corporation, 1999
41. Hoogland JJ, Boomsma A. Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and a meta-analysis. Sociol Methods Res 1998; 26: 329-367
42. Steyer R, Eid M. Messen und Testen. Berlin: Springer, 2001
43. Boosma A. Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling 2000; 7: 461-483
44. th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2006
45. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford, 2005
46. Bagozzi R, Baumgartner H. The evaluation of structural equation models and hypothesis testing. In: Bagozzi R (ed): Principles of Marketing Research. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers, 1994: 386-422
47. Butow PN, Brown RF, Cogar S et al. Oncologists' reactions to cancer patients'verbal cues. Psychooncology 2002; 11: 47-58
48. Cegala DJ. A study of doctors' and patients' patterns of information exchange and relational communication during a primary care consultation. Health Commun 1997; 2: 169-194
49. Piccolo L Del, Saltini A, Zimmermann C, Dunn G. Differences in verbal behaviours of patients with and without emotional distress during primary care consultations. Psychol Med 2000; 30: 629-643
50. Roter DL, Hall JA, Katz NR. Patient-physician communication: a descriptive summary of the literature. Patient Educ and Couns 1988; 12: 99-119
51. Larson EB, Yao Y. Clinical empathy as emotional labor in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA 2005; 293: 1100-1106
52. Bikker AP, Mercer SW, Reilly D. A pilot prospective study on the consultation and relational empathy. Patient enablement, and health changes over 12 months in patients going to the Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 591-600
53. Bortz J. Statistik für Human- und Sozialwissenschaftler. Berlin: Springer, 2005
54. MacPherson H, Mercer SW, Scullion T, Thomas KJ. Empathy, enablement, and outcome. J Altern Complement Med 2003; 9: 869-876
55. Bierhoff H, Herner M. Begriffswörterbuch der Sozialpsychologie. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002
56. Baumgartner H, Homburg C. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. Int J Res Mark 1996; 13: 139-161
57. Bühner M. Einführung in die Test- und Fragebogenkonstruktion. München: Pearson Studium, 2004
58. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol 1986; 51: 1173-1182
59. Liekam S. Empathie als Fundament pädagogischer Professionalität. Analysen zu einer vergessenen Schlüsselvariable der Pädagogik. Dissertation. München: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, 2004
60. Ommen O, Janßen C, Neugebauer E, Pfaff H. Einflussfaktoren auf das Vertrauen schwerverletzter Patienten in den Krankenhausarzt. Chirurg 2007; 78: 52-61
61. Royal College of General Practitioners (Scotland). Revalidation toolkit for doctots working in clinical general practice in Scotland. Section 3C (1) Relationship with Patients (Review of Communication Skills). 2003; www.rcgp-scotland.org.uk: download 04/2006