Advertisement

Zeitschrift für Gesundheitswissenschaften

, Volume 10, Issue 4, pp 305–315 | Cite as

Das recht des patienten auf informationen und informationsbedürfnisse aus sicht der bevölkerung

  • Manfred Wildner
  • Anne Brunner
  • Rolf Weitkunat
  • Heike Weinheimer
  • Manuel Moretti
  • Vibhavendra S. Raghuvanshi
  • Mary Luz Aparicio
Article

Zusammenfassung

Die Bedeutung von Patientenrechten wird seit nunmehr geraumer Zeit von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) betont. Es gibt jedoch kaum Studien in Europa, welche die Schritte in diese Richtung dokumentieren. Wir führten zwei telefongestützte Umfragen durch mit dem Ziel, den Erfüllungsgrad von Patientenrechten und die empfundenen Informationsbedürfnisse zu erfassen. Die erste Studie, welche in den Monaten Februar und März 2000 an einer Stichprobe von 502 Probanden durchgeführt wurde, betraf vier deutschsprachige europäische Städte und den Grad der Erfüllung von Patientenrechten. Die zweite Studie, welche in den Monaten Mai bis Juli 2001 an einer Stichprobe von 3008 Probanden durchgeführt wurde, untersuchte die empfundenen Informationsbedürfnisse in der deutschen Bevölkerung. Die gefundenen Erfüllungsgrade waren hoch für: Würde, Selbstbestimmung, menschliche Behandlung, freie Wahl des Behandlers, Vertraulichkeit und Einverständnis. Niedrigere Erfüllungsgrade betrafen die Patienteninformation, die Koordinierung von Behandlung und Pflege an der ambulant-stationären Schnittstelle und das Recht auf humane Behandlung und humanes Sterben am Lebensende. Informationsbedürfnisse betrafen vor allem Erkrankungen des Muskel-Skelettsystems, Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung, Herz-Kreislauferkrankungen, Krebs und administrative Fragen der Krankenversicherung.

Stichworte

Patientenrechte Patienteninformation Gesundheitswissenschaften Umfrage 

The patients’ right to information and citizens’ perspective of their information needs

Abstract

The European office of the World Health Organization (WHO) is stressing on the importance of patients’ rights and their information need for quite some time now. There is hardly any study in Europe documenting the steps taken in these directions. With the aim of assessing the fulfilment of patients’ rights and their perceived health information needs, we conducted two telephone-based survey studies. The first study, conducted during February - March 2000 on a sample of 502 participants, involved four German speaking European cities, assessing the fulfilment levels with the patients’ rights. The second study, conducted during May to July 2001 on a sample of 3008 citizens in Germany, assessed their perceived health information needs. High degrees of patients’ rights fulfilment were found on: dignity, patient autonomy, humane treatment, free choice among providers, confidentiality and consent. Lower fulfilment was associated with patient information, coordination of care on transfer between inpatient / outpatient care sectors and the right to humane terminal care and dying in dignity. Health information need was felt mostly for: musculoskeletal disorders, disease prevention and health promotion, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and for administrative questions on sickness funds.

Keywords

Patients’ rights patient information health services research survey 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angell, M. (2000). Patients’ Rights Bills and other futile gestures. N Engl J Med, 342, 1663–1664.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Annas, G. (1998). A national bill of patients’ rights. N Engl J Med, 338, 695–699.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnsley, J./Williams, A.P./Cockerill, R./Tanner J. (1999). Physician characteristics and the physician-patient relationship. Impact of sex, year of graduation, and specialty. Can Fam Physician, 45, 935–42.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayle, F. J./Chauchot, F./Maurel, M./Ledoriol, A.L./Gerard, A./Pascal, J.C./ et al (1999). Survey on the announcement of schizophrenia diagnosis in France. Encephale, 25, 603–611.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bedi, N./Chilvers, C./Churchill, R./Dewey, M./Duggan, C./Fielding, K. et al Assessing effectiveness of treatment of depression in primary care. Partially randomised preference trial. Brit J Psychiat 2000, 177, 312-8.Google Scholar
  6. Brunner, A./Wildner, M./Fischer, R./Ludwig, M./Meyer, N./Crispin, A. et al (2000). Patientenrechte in vier deutschsprachigen europäischen Regionen. Z f Gesundheitswiss, 8, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canga, N./DeIrala, J./Vara, E./Duaso, M.J./Ferrer, A./Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A. (2000). Intervention study for smoking cessation in diabetic patients: a randomized controlled trial in both clinical and primary care settings. Diabetes Care, 23, 1455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cherkin, D.C./Deyo, R.A./Battie, M./Street, J./Barlow, W. (1998). A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med, 339, 1021–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, N.M./Gong, M./Schork, M.A./Evans, D./Roloff, D./Hurwitz, M. et al (1998). Impact of education for physicians on patient outcomes. Pediatrics, 101, 831–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Deyo, R.A./Cherkin, D.C./Weinstein, J./Howe, J./Ciol, M./Mulley, A.G.Jr. (2000). Involving patients in clinical decisions: impact of an interactive video program on use of back surgery. Med Care, 38, 959–69.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Edwards, A./Hood, K./Matthews, E./Russell, D./Russell, I./Barker, J. et al (2000). The effectiveness of one-to-one risk communication interventions in health care: a systematic review. Med Dec Making, 20, 290–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer, R./Wildner, M./Brunner, A. (2000). Gesundheit und Menschenrechte - Entwicklung eines Fragebogens zur Messung des empfundenen Menschenrechtsstatus. Z Soz Präv Med, 45, 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grunfeld, E./Fitzpatrick, R./Mant, D./Yudkin, P./Adewuyi-Dalton, R./Stewart, J. et al (1999). Comparison of breast cancer patient satisfaction with follow-up in primary care versus specialist care: results from a randomized controlled trial. Brit J Gen Pract, 49, 705–10.Google Scholar
  14. Hamalainen, H./Ronnemaa, T./Toikka, T./Liukkonen, I. (1998). Long-term effects of one year of intensified podiatric activities on foot-care knowledge and self-care habits in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Educator, 24, 734–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hermans, H. (1997). Patients’ rights in the European Union. Eu J Public Health, 7(3 Supplement), 11–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hulsman, R.L./Ros, W. J./Winnubst, J. A./Bensing, J.M. (1999). Teaching clinically experienced physicians communication skills. A review of evaluation studies. Med Educ, 33, 655–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kendrick, D./Fielding, K./Bentley, E./Kerslake, R./Miller, P./Pringle, M. (2001). Radiography of the lumbar spine in primary care patients with low back pain: randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 322, 400–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. McBride, C.M./Scholes, D./Grothaus, L.C./Curry, S.J./Ludman, E./Albright, J. (1999). Evaluation of a minimal self-help smoking cessation intervention following cervical cancer screening. Prev Med, 29, 133–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. McHorney, C./Ware, J./Raczek, A. (1993). The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care, 31, 247–263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Molenaar, S./Sprangers, M.A./Postma-Schuit, F.C./Rutgers, E.J./Noorlander, J./Hendriks, J. et al (2000). Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making, 20, 112–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Connor, A.M./Rostom, A./Fiset, V./Tetroe, J./Entwistle, V./Llewellyn-Thomas, H. et al (1999). Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ, 319, 731–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Pignone, M./Harris, R./Kinsinger, L. (2000). Videotape-based decision aid for colon cancer screening. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med, 133, 761–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Pritchard, D.A./Hyndman, J./Taba F. (1999). Nutritional counselling in general practice: a cost effective analysis. J Epidemiol Commun H, 53, 311–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reiser, S.J. (1993). The era of the patient. Using the experience of illness in shaping the missions of health care [see comments]. JAMA, 269, 1012–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ridsdale, L./Kwan, I./Cryer, C. (1999). The effect of a special nurse on patients’ knowledge of epilepsy and their emotional state. Epilepsy Evaluation Care Group. Brit J Gen Pract, 49, 285–9.Google Scholar
  26. Rodgers, H./Atkinson, C./Bond, S./Suddes, M./Dobson, R./Curless, R. (1999). Randomized controlled trial of a comprehensive stroke education program for patients and caregivers. Stroke, 30, 2585–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Roter, D./Rosenbaum, J./deNegri, B./Renaud, D./DiPrete-Brown, L./Hernandez, O. (1998). The effects of a continuing medical education programme in interpersonal communication skills on doctor practice and patient satisfaction in Trinidad and Tobago. Med Educ, 32, 181–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Segest, E. (1996). Patients’ complaint procedures, in a Scandinavian perspective. Eur J Health Law, 3, 231–254.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Sonis, J./Gorenflo, D./Jha, P./Williams, C. (1996). Teaching human rights in US medical schools. JAMA, 276, 1676–1678.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Thorn, D.H./Bloch, D.A./Segal, E.S. (1999). An intervention to increase patients’ trust in their physicians. Stanford Trust Study Physician Group. Acad Med, 74, 195–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thomas, M./Del Mar, C./Glasziou, P. (2000). How effective are treatments other than antibiotics for acute sore throat? [see comments.]. Brit J Gen Pract, 50, 817–20.Google Scholar
  32. Towle, A./Godolphin, W. (1999). Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making. BMJ, 319, 766–771.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. Trout, A./Magnusson, A.R./Hedges, J.R. (2000). Patient satisfaction investigations and the emergency department: what does the literature say? Acad Emerg Med, 7, 695–709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Volk, R. J./Cass, A.R./Spann, S.J. (1999). A randomized controlled trial of shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Arch Fam Med, 8, 333–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ware, J./Sherbourne, C. (1992). The MOS 36-Item short form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care, 30, 473–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (1994). Declaration on the Promotion of Patients’ Rights in Europe. Copenhagen: WHO.Google Scholar
  37. Wildner, M./Kerim-Sade, C./Fischer, R./Meyer, N./Brunner-Wildner, A. (2001). Regionale und geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede in der Erfüllung von Patientenrechten: Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage in München, Dresden, Wien und Bern. Soz Präv Med, 46, 248–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Wildner
    • 1
  • Anne Brunner
  • Rolf Weitkunat
  • Heike Weinheimer
  • Manuel Moretti
  • Vibhavendra S. Raghuvanshi
  • Mary Luz Aparicio
  1. 1.Bayerischer Forschungs- und Aktionsverbund Public HealthForschungs- und Koordinierungsstelle

Personalised recommendations