↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Impact of organizational and individual factors on patient-provider relationships: A national survey of doctors, nurses and patients in China
Published in
PLOS ONE, July 2017
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0181396
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

To provide an empirical examination of patient-provider relationships (PPR) and its association with organizational and individual factors. A national cross-sectional survey was conducted by stratified cluster sampling in 77 hospitals across seven provinces in China between July 2014 and April 2015, involving 3621 doctors, 5561 nurses, and 8022 patients with response rates of 62.93%, 61.16%, and 33.08%, respectively. Self-perceived PPR was the outcome variable. Organizational factors included hospital type (western medicine [WM] and traditional Chinese medicine [TCM] hospital); hospital level (tertiary and secondary hospital); area of specialization (internal medicine and surgery); ratio of doctors (nurses) to ward beds; doctors/nurses' concerns about performance assessment; and patients' perceptions of healthcare cost. Individual factors included consultation, listening to patients and socio-demographic factors. 54.6% of doctors, 36.6% of nurses, and 10.2% of patients perceived PPR as poor. Organizational factors independently associated with providers' perception of poor PPR included hospital type (WM vs TCM: OR = 1.25 [95% CI: 1.06-1.47]) and concerns about performance assessment (high vs low levels: OR = 1.40 [95% CI: 1.14-1.72]) for doctors, and concerns about performance assessment (average vs low levels: OR = 0.79 [95% CI: 0.67-0.93]) for nurses. Those associated with patients' perception of poor PPR included hospital type (WM vs TCM: OR = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.53-0.74]) and hospital level (tertiary vs secondary: OR = 0.65 [95% CI: 0.51-0.82]). Doctors and nurses reporting listening to patients "frequently" had better perceptions of PPR (OR = 0.46 [95%CI: 0.38-0.56] and 0.49 [95% CI: 0.41-0.59] for doctors and nurses, respectively), as did their patients (OR = 0.24 [95% CI: 0.18-0.31] and 0.54 [95% CI: 0.35-0.84] for doctors and nurses, respectively). Although our findings require validation in different organizational settings given the likely variability of these associations across systems, our results suggest that implementing moderate levels promoting the level of medical treatment, and broadening doctors/nurses training regarding listening to patients, may benefit to enhance PPR.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Student > Postgraduate 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Lecturer 2 4%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 25 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 19%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 26 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#19,553,478
of 24,051,764 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#166,625
of 206,353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#247,168
of 319,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#3,188
of 4,086 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,051,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 206,353 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,086 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.