All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Re-conceptualizing interruptions in physician-patient interview: Co-operative and intrusive
Unformatted Document Text:  Interruption Patterns 17 for the 30 interviews, and are presented in Table 1. _______________________________ Insert Table 1 about here ----------------------------------------------- MANOVA was used to examine the two research questions stated previously: 1. Whether there was a significant difference between the scores of physicians and patients in intrusive, co-operative, and unsuccessful interruptions. 2. Whether there was a significant difference between the two gender combinations (male physicians/male patients vs. male physicians/female patients) in their scores of intrusive, co-operative, and unsuccessful interruptions. To test for role (physician vs. patient) main effects, gender combination main effects (M/M vs. M/F), and role by gender combination interactions, a 2 by 2 MANOVA was conducted. The analysis showed a significant role main effect for intrusive interruption, F (1,56) = 8.11, p < .01, η 2 = .13 and unsuccessful interruption, F (1,56) = 11.31, p = .001, η 2 = .17. As shown in Table 1, physicians engaged in significantly more intrusive interruptions but fewer unsuccessful interruptions than patients. There was no role main effect for co-operative interruption. MANOVA indicated a significant gender main effect for co-operative interruption, F (1, 56) = 9.89, p < .01, η 2 = .15. The mean for co-operative interruption in the M/M group was 1.32 (SD = 2.00), whereas the mean for co-operative interruption in the M/F group was 4.01 (SD = 4.01). As can be seen in Table 1, there was no change in physicians’ scores of co-operative interruption whether they were paired with male patients or female patients. There was a significant change in the scores of co-operative interruption for patients. There were also more intrusive interruptions in the M/F group (M = 3.63, SD = 3.71) than in the M/M group (M = 2.32, SD = 2.78), but the difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistically significant difference between the scores in unsuccessful interruption of the M/M and M/F

Authors: Li, Han., Krysko, Michael., Desroches, Naghmeh. and Deagle, George.
first   previous   Page 17 of 37   next   last



background image
Interruption Patterns
17
for the 30 interviews, and are presented in Table 1.
_______________________________
Insert Table 1 about here
-----------------------------------------------
MANOVA was used to examine the two research questions stated previously:
1. Whether there was a significant difference between the scores of physicians and patients
in intrusive, co-operative, and unsuccessful interruptions.
2. Whether there was a significant difference between the two gender combinations (male
physicians/male patients vs. male physicians/female patients) in their scores of intrusive,
co-operative, and unsuccessful interruptions.
To test for role (physician vs. patient) main effects, gender combination main effects
(M/M vs. M/F), and role by gender combination interactions, a 2 by 2 MANOVA was
conducted. The analysis showed a significant role main effect for intrusive interruption, F (1,56)
= 8.11, p < .01,
η
2
= .13 and unsuccessful interruption, F (1,56) = 11.31, p = .001,
η
2
= .17.
As shown in Table 1, physicians engaged in significantly more intrusive interruptions but fewer
unsuccessful interruptions than patients. There was no role main effect for co-operative
interruption.
MANOVA indicated a significant gender main effect for co-operative interruption, F (1,
56) = 9.89, p < .01,
η
2
= .15. The mean for co-operative interruption in the M/M group was
1.32 (SD = 2.00), whereas the mean for co-operative interruption in the M/F group was 4.01 (SD
= 4.01). As can be seen in Table 1, there was no change in physicians’ scores of co-operative
interruption whether they were paired with male patients or female patients. There was a
significant change in the scores of co-operative interruption for patients. There were also more
intrusive interruptions in the M/F group (M = 3.63, SD = 3.71) than in the M/M group (M =
2.32, SD = 2.78), but the difference was not statistically significant. There was no statistically
significant difference between the scores in unsuccessful interruption of the M/M and M/F


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 17 of 37   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.