Background: Patient preferences regarding their involvement in shared treatments decisions is fundamental in clinical practice. Previous evidences demonstrated a large heterogeneity in these preferences. However, only few studies have analysed the influence of patients’ individual differences, contextual and situational qualities, and their complex interaction in explaining this variability. Methods: We assessed the role of the interaction of patient’s sociodemographic and psychological factors with a physician’s gender. Specifically, we focused on patient gender and attitudes toward male or female physicians. One hundred fifty-three people participated in this randomised controlled study and were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions in which they were asked to imagine discussing their treatment with a male and a female doctor. Results: Analyses showed an interplay between attitude towards women and the gender of patients and doctors, explaining interindividual variability in patient preferences. Conclusions: In conclusion, patients’ attitudes toward the physicians’ gender constitutes a relevant characteristic that may influence the degree of control patients want to have and the overall patient-physician relationship.

Monzani, D., Vergani, L., Pizzoli, S. F. M., Marton, G., Mazzocco, K., Bailo, L., Messori, C., Pancani, L., Cattelan, M., Pravettoni, G., Sexism Interacts with Patient–Physician Gender Concordance in Influencing Patient Control Preferences: Findings from a Vignette Experimental Design, <<APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY. HEALTH AND WELL-BEING>>, 2020; (12): 471-492. [doi:10.1111/aphw.12193] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/231686]

Sexism Interacts with Patient–Physician Gender Concordance in Influencing Patient Control Preferences: Findings from a Vignette Experimental Design

Monzani, Dario;Pizzoli, Silvia Francesca Maria
;
2020

Abstract

Background: Patient preferences regarding their involvement in shared treatments decisions is fundamental in clinical practice. Previous evidences demonstrated a large heterogeneity in these preferences. However, only few studies have analysed the influence of patients’ individual differences, contextual and situational qualities, and their complex interaction in explaining this variability. Methods: We assessed the role of the interaction of patient’s sociodemographic and psychological factors with a physician’s gender. Specifically, we focused on patient gender and attitudes toward male or female physicians. One hundred fifty-three people participated in this randomised controlled study and were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions in which they were asked to imagine discussing their treatment with a male and a female doctor. Results: Analyses showed an interplay between attitude towards women and the gender of patients and doctors, explaining interindividual variability in patient preferences. Conclusions: In conclusion, patients’ attitudes toward the physicians’ gender constitutes a relevant characteristic that may influence the degree of control patients want to have and the overall patient-physician relationship.
2020
Inglese
Monzani, D., Vergani, L., Pizzoli, S. F. M., Marton, G., Mazzocco, K., Bailo, L., Messori, C., Pancani, L., Cattelan, M., Pravettoni, G., Sexism Interacts with Patient–Physician Gender Concordance in Influencing Patient Control Preferences: Findings from a Vignette Experimental Design, <<APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY. HEALTH AND WELL-BEING>>, 2020; (12): 471-492. [doi:10.1111/aphw.12193] [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/231686]
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Sexism Interacts with Patient–Physician Gender Concordance in Influencing Patient Control Preferences_ Findings from a Vignette Experimental Design.pdf

accesso aperto

Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 332.22 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
332.22 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10807/231686
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 5
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 11
social impact