Do doctors’ attachment styles and emotional intelligence influence patients’ emotional expressions in primary care consultations? An exploratory study using multilevel analysis

摘要

? 2017 Elsevier B.V. ? 2017 Elsevier B.V. Objective: To investigate whether and how doctors’ attachment styles and emotional intelligence (EI) might influence patients’ emotional expressions in general practice consultations. Methods: Video recordings of 26 junior doctors consulting with 173 patients were coded using the Verona Coding Definition of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). Doctors’ attachment style was scored across two dimensions, avoidance and anxiety, using the Experiences in Close Relationships: Short Form questionnaire. EI was assessed with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Multilevel Poisson regressions modelled the probability of patients’ expressing emotional distress, considering doctors’ attachment styles and EI and demographic and contextual factors. Results: Both attachment styles and EI were significantly associated with frequency of patients’ cues, with patient- and doctor-level explanatory variables accounting for 42% of the variance in patients’ cues. The relative contribution of attachment styles and EI varied depending on whether patients’ presenting complaints were physical or psychosocial in nature. Conclusion: Doctors’ attachment styles and levels of EI are associated with patients’ emotional expressions in primary care consultations. Further research is needed to investigate how these two variables interact and influence provider responses and patient outcomes. Practice implications: Understanding how doctors’ psychological characteristics influence PPC may help to optimise undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Objective: To investigate whether and how doctors’ attachment styles and emotional intelligence (EI) might influence patients’ emotional expressions in general practice consultations. Methods: Video recordings of 26 junior doctors consulting with 173 patients were coded using the Verona Coding Definition of Emotional Sequences (VR-CoDES). Doctors’ attachment style was scored across two dimensions, avoidance and anxiety, using the Experiences in Close Relationships: Short Form questionnaire. EI was assessed with the Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test. Multilevel Poisson regressions modelled the probability of patients’ expressing emotional distress, considering doctors’ attachment styles and EI and demographic and contextual factors. Results: Both attachment styles and EI were significantly associated with frequency of patients’ cues, with patient- and doctor-level explanatory variables accounting for 42% of the variance in patients’ cues. The relative contribution of attachment styles and EI varied depending on whether patients’ presenting complaints were physical or psychosocial in nature. Conclusion: Doctors’ attachment styles and levels of EI are associated with patients’ emotional expressions in primary care consultations. Further research is needed to investigate how these two variables interact and influence provider responses and patient outcomes. Practice implications: Understanding how doctors’ psychological characteristics influence PPC may help to optimise undergraduate and postgraduate medical education.