. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2016 Oct 1.

Published in final edited form as: Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Jun 17;98(10):1274–1279. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.06.005

Table 2.

Relationship between receipt of treatment summary and patient-centered communication and quality of care ratings.

	OR (95%CI) or Unstandardized Beta (SE)	p-value^a
Overall Patient-Centered Communication Score^b	7.40 (2.43)	.004
Six Functions of Patient-Centered Communication^c,^d
Exchanging Information	1.93 (1.09–3.40)	.024
Responding to Emotions	1.54 (.92–2.59)	.103
Making Decisions	1.96 (1.11–3.45)	.020
Enabling Self-Management	1.91 (1.08–3.37)	.027
Managing Uncertainty	1.94 (1.14–3.32)	.015
Fostering Healing Relationships	2.13 (1.20–3.79)	.010
Quality of Care Rating^e	3.44 (1.44–8.19)	.005

Adjusted for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, time since treatment, health status, having a regular provider, treatment burden, and number of comorbid conditions.

Linear regression of patient-centered communication scale on receipt of treatment summary.

Separate logistic regressions of six functions and quality of care on receipt of treatment summary.

Dichotomized as optimal (always) vs. suboptimal (usually/sometimes/never). Suboptimal is the reference group.

Dichotomized as Excellent/Very good vs. Good/Fair/Poor. Good/Fair/Poor is the reference group.