April 4-6, 2024 • Hyatt Regency • Lexington, KY
Innovations in Health Communication
Innovations in Health Communication
Abstract: Healthcare Providers’ Resilience Communication: A New Type of Patient-Centered Communication
The communication theory of resilience (CTR; Buzzanell, 2010) defines resilience as communication (e.g., interaction, discourse, storytelling) that enables adaptation to disruption. CTR details five communicative resilience processes that have been linked to positive outcomes like cancer management and improved mental health (Venetis et al., 2020; Wilson et al., 2021). Scholars have yet to assess if CTR processes enhance patient-provider communication. Research has consistently demonstrated the value of patient-centered communication (PCC) including building the patient-provider relationship, shared decision-making, and addressing patient perspectives. The current study tests if the CTR processes further patient satisfaction and perceived physical and mental health beyond the benefits of already established aspects of PCC.
Qualtrics panels recruited participants from their existing participant pool, resulting in a sample of 486 individuals. Participants were on average 47 years old (SD = 17.55, Range 18-95), predominantly White (74.5%), Black (21.6%) and/or Hispanic/Latina/o (10.3%), 50.2% female, and 50.2% had a high school education or less. Participants responded to measures of condition severity, PCC, and satisfaction about the last time they had seen a healthcare provider for an illness, injury, or medical condition. Most reported on a visit within the last three months (54.7%).
A 20-item measure of healthcare provider resilience communication (HPRC) was created, modeling items after Chernichky-Karcher et al.’s (2019) and Wilson et al.’s (2021) CTR measures, with four items per process. The processes include crafting normalcy (“helped me figure out how to adjust my routines around the illness/condition and treatment”), affirming identity anchors (“saw me as a person, not just a patient”), using communication networks (“checked that I had people who could help me manage my illness/condition”), employing alternative logics (“reframed my illness/condition to help me be less worried”), and foregrounding productive action while legitimizing negative feelings (“took time to address my negative feelings but focused on what we could do to make things better”). Using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation (extracting five factors), all items loaded above .4 on their anticipated factors (α = .87-.90), except for one productive action item which was removed.
All five processes were positively correlated with patient satisfaction, perceived physical health, and perceived mental health. Controlling for PCC, patient satisfaction was positively influenced by crafting normalcy, identity anchors, and alternative logics. Controlling for PCC, perceived physical health was positively influenced by communication networks, alternative logics, and productive action. The CTR processes did not contribute to mental health beyond the variance accounted for by PCC. PROCESS model 1 in SPSS was used to test if condition severity was a moderator. Crafting normalcy positively influenced perceived physical health for patients with moderate or high illness severity.
The current study furthers understanding of resilience communication by assessing how CTR processes function in patient-provider communication, demonstrating benefits on patient satisfaction and perceived physical health. The processes contributed unique variance beyond established PCC dimensions (such as adequate provider explanations, time spent, and patient questions, addressing patient uncertainty, and shared decision-making). Providers should consider utilizing CTR processes, with crafting normalcy being important for more severe conditions.
Qualtrics panels recruited participants from their existing participant pool, resulting in a sample of 486 individuals. Participants were on average 47 years old (SD = 17.55, Range 18-95), predominantly White (74.5%), Black (21.6%) and/or Hispanic/Latina/o (10.3%), 50.2% female, and 50.2% had a high school education or less. Participants responded to measures of condition severity, PCC, and satisfaction about the last time they had seen a healthcare provider for an illness, injury, or medical condition. Most reported on a visit within the last three months (54.7%).
A 20-item measure of healthcare provider resilience communication (HPRC) was created, modeling items after Chernichky-Karcher et al.’s (2019) and Wilson et al.’s (2021) CTR measures, with four items per process. The processes include crafting normalcy (“helped me figure out how to adjust my routines around the illness/condition and treatment”), affirming identity anchors (“saw me as a person, not just a patient”), using communication networks (“checked that I had people who could help me manage my illness/condition”), employing alternative logics (“reframed my illness/condition to help me be less worried”), and foregrounding productive action while legitimizing negative feelings (“took time to address my negative feelings but focused on what we could do to make things better”). Using principal axis factoring with direct oblimin rotation (extracting five factors), all items loaded above .4 on their anticipated factors (α = .87-.90), except for one productive action item which was removed.
All five processes were positively correlated with patient satisfaction, perceived physical health, and perceived mental health. Controlling for PCC, patient satisfaction was positively influenced by crafting normalcy, identity anchors, and alternative logics. Controlling for PCC, perceived physical health was positively influenced by communication networks, alternative logics, and productive action. The CTR processes did not contribute to mental health beyond the variance accounted for by PCC. PROCESS model 1 in SPSS was used to test if condition severity was a moderator. Crafting normalcy positively influenced perceived physical health for patients with moderate or high illness severity.
The current study furthers understanding of resilience communication by assessing how CTR processes function in patient-provider communication, demonstrating benefits on patient satisfaction and perceived physical health. The processes contributed unique variance beyond established PCC dimensions (such as adequate provider explanations, time spent, and patient questions, addressing patient uncertainty, and shared decision-making). Providers should consider utilizing CTR processes, with crafting normalcy being important for more severe conditions.