Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of PCC and SDM between patient groups

From: Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study

  PCC SDM
Gender   
- Man 2.1 (0.63) 2.4 (0.87)
- Women 2.1 (0.71) 2.3 (0.83)
  (p > 0.60) (p > 0.10)
  t = 0.447; n = 574 t = 1.425; n = 573
Education   
- Low 2.2 (0.65) 2.3 (0.78)
- Medium 2.1 (0.66) 2.4 (0.77)
- High 2.0 (0.56) 2.5(0.81)
  (p > 0.40) (p > 0.20)
  t = 0.741; n = 366 t = 1.250; n = 366
Age   
- 18–65 years 2.1 (0.69) 2.3 (0.83)
- 65+70 years 2.0 (0.65) 2.2 (0.93)
  (p > 0.70) (p > 0.40)
  t = 0.243; n = 516 t = 0.706; n = 516
Functional health status   
- Poor/average 2.2 (0.62) 2.3 (0.75)
- Good/very good/excellent 2.2 (0.65) 2.4 (0.84)
  (p > 0.60) (p > 0.30)
  t = 0.443; n = 412 t = 0.889; n = 411
Chronic conditions   
- No 2.1 (0.65) 2.3 (0.83)
- Yes 2.1 (0.64) 2.4 (0.80)
  (p > 0.60) (p > 0.05)
  F = 0.397; n = 426 t = 1.653; n = 427
  1. Legend: Mean scores and standard deviations between brackets. To correct for clustering of patients within GPs the original t-values have been divided by the square root of the 'design effect', which was 2.01 for PCC (ICC = 0.34) and 1.31 for SDM (ICC = 0.19). The design effect is 1+(n-1)*ICC, where n is the average cluster size (n = 10 in our study) and ICC the intracluster correlation.