Association Between the Mental Health of Patients With Psoriasis and Their Satisfaction With Physicians | Depressive Disorders | JAMA Dermatology | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Patient Satisfaction Among Adults With Psoriasis by Severity of Mental Health Symptoms From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Patient Satisfaction Among Adults With Psoriasis by Severity of Mental Health Symptoms From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey

Patient satisfaction as measured by the patient-provider communication composite score. The vertical lines indicate 95% CIs.

aP = .002.

bP < .001.

Table 1.  Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics of US Adult Patients With Psoriasis by Severity of Mental Health Symptoms From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Sociodemographic and Clinical Characteristics of US Adult Patients With Psoriasis by Severity of Mental Health Symptoms From the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey
Table 2.  Adjusted Multivariate Logistic Regression Analyses of the Association Between Mental Health Comorbidity Symptoms and Patient Satisfaction Among Adults With Psoriasis From the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveya
Adjusted Multivariate Logistic Regression Analyses of the Association Between Mental Health Comorbidity Symptoms and Patient Satisfaction Among Adults With Psoriasis From the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveya
1.
Augustin  M, Eissing  L, Elsner  P,  et al.  Perception and image of dermatology in the German general population 2002-2014.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(12):2124-2130. doi:10.1111/jdv.14476 PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Poulos  GA, Brodell  RT, Mostow  EN.  Improving quality and patient satisfaction in dermatology office practice.   Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(2):263-265. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2007.58 PubMedGoogle Scholar
3.
Camacho  FT, Balkrishnan  R, Khanna  V,  et al.  How happy are dermatologists’ patients? a review of a study examining patients’ perceptions of dermatology practices.   Dermatologist. 2013;21(4):38-42.Google Scholar
4.
Richard  MA, Joly  P, Roy Geffroy  B, Taïeb  C.  Public perception of dermatologists in France: results from a population-based national survey.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(8):1610-1615. doi:10.1111/jdv.15541 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Coast  J, Horrocks  S.  Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods.   J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25-30. doi:10.1258/135581907779497602 PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Noerreslet  M, Jemec  GBE, Traulsen  JM.  Involuntary autonomy: patients’ perceptions of physicians, conventional medicines and risks in the management of atopic dermatitis.   Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(9):1409-1415. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.036 PubMedGoogle Scholar
7.
Gibbons  C, Singh  S, Gibbons  B,  et al.  Using qualitative methods to understand factors contributing to patient satisfaction among dermatology patients: a systematic review.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29(3):290-294. doi:10.1080/09546634.2017.1364688 PubMedGoogle Scholar
8.
van Scheppingen  C, Lettinga  AT, Duipmans  JC, Maathuis  CGB, Jonkman  MF.  Main problems experienced by children with epidermolysis bullosa: a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2008;88(2):143-150. doi:10.2340/00015555-0376 PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Magin  PJ, Adams  J, Heading  GS, Pond  CD.  Patients with skin disease and their relationships with their doctors: a qualitative study of patients with acne, psoriasis and eczema.   Med J Aust. 2009;190(2):62-64. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02276.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
10.
Collins  K, Walters  S, Bowns  I.  Patient satisfaction with teledermatology: quantitative and qualitative results from a randomized controlled trial.   J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(1):29-33. doi:10.1258/135763304322764167 PubMedGoogle Scholar
11.
Andreassen  HK.  What does an email address add?—doing health and technology at home.   Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(4):521-528. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Ersser  SJ, Surridge  H, Wiles  A.  What criteria do patients use when judging the effectiveness of psoriasis management?   J Eval Clin Pract. 2002;8(4):367-376. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00372.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
13.
Nelson  PA, Barker  Z, Griffiths  CE, Cordingley  L, Chew-Graham  CA; IMPACT Team.  “On the surface”: a qualitative study of GPs’ and patients’ perspectives on psoriasis.   BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:158. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-158 PubMedGoogle Scholar
14.
Waernulf  L, Moberg  C, Henriksson  EW, Evengard  B, Nyberg  F.  Patients’ views on care and treatment after phototherapy for psoriasis and atopic eczema including a gender perspective.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2008;19(4):233-240. doi:10.1080/09546630801955127 PubMedGoogle Scholar
15.
Halldin  CB, Gonzalez  H, Wennberg  AM, Lepp  M.  Patients’ experiences of pain and pain relief during photodynamic therapy on actinic keratoses: an interview study.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93(4):433-437. doi:10.2340/00015555-1500 PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Kaplan  SH, Greenfield  S, Ware  JE  Jr.  Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease.   Med Care. 1989;27(3)(suppl):S110-S127. doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
Stelfox  HT, Gandhi  TK, Orav  EJ, Gustafson  ML.  The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits.   Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-1133. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.060 PubMedGoogle Scholar
18.
Doyle  C, Lennox  L, Bell  D.  A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness.   BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Dubina  MI, O’Neill  JL, Feldman  SR.  Effect of patient satisfaction on outcomes of care.   Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(5):393-395. doi:10.1586/erp.09.45 PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Stewart  MA.  Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review.   CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423-1433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
21.
Hayes  J, Koo  J.  Psoriasis: depression, anxiety, smoking, and drinking habits.   Dermatol Ther. 2010;23(2):174-180. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2010.01312.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
22.
Kurd  SK, Troxel  AB, Crits-Christoph  P, Gelfand  JM.  The risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with psoriasis: a population-based cohort study.   Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(8):891-895. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2010.186PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
Liang  SE, Cohen  JM, Ho  RS.  Psoriasis and suicidality: a review of the literature.   Dermatol Ther. 2019;32(1):e12771. doi:10.1111/dth.12771 PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
Cohen  JW, Cohen  SB, Banthin  JS.  The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national information resource to support healthcare cost research and inform policy and practice.   Med Care. 2009;47(7)(suppl 1):S44-S50. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a23e3a PubMedGoogle Scholar
25.
Fischer  AH, Shin  DB, Gelfand  JM, Takeshita  J.  Health care utilization for psoriasis in the United States differs by race: an analysis of the 2001-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):200-203. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.07.052 PubMedGoogle Scholar
26.
Salame  N, Ehsani-Chimeh  N, Armstrong  AW.  Comparison of mental health outcomes among adults with psoriasis on biologic versus oral therapies: a population-based study.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2019;30(2):135-140. doi:10.1080/09546634.2018.1476654 PubMedGoogle Scholar
27.
McGee  J, Kanouse  DE, Sofaer  S, Hargraves  JL, Hoy  E, Kleimann  S; Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.  Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS.   Med Care. 1999;37(3)(suppl):MS32-MS40. doi:10.1097/00005650-199903001-00004 PubMedGoogle Scholar
28.
Hargraves  JL, Hays  RD, Cleary  PD.  Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey.   Health Serv Res. 2003;38(6, pt 1):1509-1527. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00190.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
29.
Okunrintemi  V, Spatz  ES, Di Capua  P,  et al.  Patient-provider communication and health outcomes among individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2010 to 2013.   Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(4):e003635. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.003635 PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Rutten  LJF, Augustson  E, Wanke  K.  Factors associated with patients’ perceptions of health care providers’ communication behavior.   J Health Commun. 2006;11(suppl 1):135-146. doi:10.1080/10810730600639596 PubMedGoogle Scholar
31.
Ok  H, Marks  R, Allegrante  JP.  Perceptions of health care provider communication activity among American cancer survivors and adults without cancer histories: an analysis of the 2003 Health Information Trends Survey (HINTS) data.   J Health Commun. 2008;13(7):637-653. doi:10.1080/10810730802412172 PubMedGoogle Scholar
32.
Calo  WA, Ortiz  AP, Colon-Lopez  V, Krasny  S, Tortolero-Luna  G.  Factors associated with perceived patient-provider communication quality among Puerto Ricans.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(2):491-502. doi:10.1353/hpu.2014.0074 PubMedGoogle Scholar
33.
Cerier  E, Beal  EW, Chakedis  J,  et al.  Patient-provider relationships and health outcomes among hepatopancreatobiliary patients.   J Surg Res. 2018;228:290-298. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
34.
Kessler  RC, Barker  PR, Colpe  LJ,  et al.  Screening for serious mental illness in the general population.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Kessler  RC, Andrews  G, Colpe  LJ,  et al.  Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress.   Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959-976. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006074 PubMedGoogle Scholar
36.
Fleishman  JA, Zuvekas  SH.  Global self-rated mental health: associations with other mental health measures and with role functioning.   Med Care. 2007;45(7):602-609. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31803bb4b0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
37.
Prochaska  JJ, Sung  HY, Max  W, Shi  Y, Ong  M.  Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization.   Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2012;21(2):88-97. doi:10.1002/mpr.1349 PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Löwe  B, Kroenke  K, Gräfe  K.  Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2).   J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(2):163-171. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.09.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
39.
Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW.  The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener.   Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284-1292. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Read  C, Armstrong  AW.  Do mental health comorbidities influence patient satisfaction? a population study among U.S adults with psoriasis.   J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139(5)(suppl):S36. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.03.285 Google Scholar
41.
Dreger  S, Buck  C, Bolte  G.  Material, psychosocial and sociodemographic determinants are associated with positive mental health in Europe: a cross-sectional study.   BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005095. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005095 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Lyketsos  CG, Lopez  O, Jones  B, Fitzpatrick  AL, Breitner  J, DeKosky  S.  Prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia and mild cognitive impairment: results from the Cardiovascular Health Study.   JAMA. 2002;288(12):1475-1483. doi:10.1001/jama.288.12.1475 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Tefft  N.  Mental health and employment: the SAD story.   Econ Hum Biol. 2012;10(3):242-255. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2011.08.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Meyer  OL, Castro-Schilo  L, Aguilar-Gaxiola  S.  Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: a model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity.   Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):1734-1741. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Kessler  RC, McGonagle  KA, Zhao  S,  et al.  Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(1):8-19. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950010008002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
46.
Robins  LN, Regier  DA, eds.  Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. The Free Press; 1991:17.
47.
Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
48.
D’Hoore  W, Bouckaert  A, Tilquin  C.  Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with administrative data bases.   J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1429-1433. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00271-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
D’Hoore  W, Sicotte  C, Tilquin  C.  Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson Comorbidity Index.   Methods Inf Med. 1993;32(5):382-387. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634956 PubMedGoogle Scholar
50.
de Groot  V, Beckerman  H, Lankhorst  GJ, Bouter  LM.  How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(3):221-229. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00585-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
51.
Okunrintemi  V, Benson  EA, Tibuakuu  M,  et al.  Trends and costs associated with suboptimal physical activity among US women with cardiovascular disease.   JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(4):e191977. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1977 PubMedGoogle Scholar
52.
Tripathi  R, Knusel  KD, Ezaldein  HH, Honaker  JS, Bordeaux  JS, Scott  JF.  Incremental health care expenditure of chronic cutaneous ulcers in the United States.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(6):694-699. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5942 PubMedGoogle Scholar
53.
Kulkarni  AS, Balkrishnan  R, Richmond  D, Pearce  DJ, Feldman  SR.  Medication-related factors affecting health care outcomes and costs for patients with psoriasis in the United States.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(1):27-31. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.08.004 PubMedGoogle Scholar
54.
Caulley  L, Thavorn  K, Rudmik  L, Cameron  C, Kilty  SJ.  Direct costs of adult chronic rhinosinusitis by using 4 methods of estimation: results of the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.   J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136(6):1517-1522. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2015.08.037 PubMedGoogle Scholar
55.
Street  RL  Jr, Makoul  G, Arora  NK, Epstein  RM.  How does communication heal? pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes.   Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295-301. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015 PubMedGoogle Scholar
56.
Jackson  JL.  Communication about symptoms in primary care: impact on patient outcomes.   J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(suppl 1):S51-S56. doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.s-51 PubMedGoogle Scholar
57.
Epstein  RM, Street  RL  Jr. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute; 2007. NIH Publication 07-6225. Accessed January 19, 2020. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/docs/pcc_monograph.pdf
58.
Arora  NK.  Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior.   Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(5):791-806. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00449-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
59.
Roter  D, Hall  J.  Doctors Talking With Patients/Patients Talking With Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. 2nd ed. Praeger; 2006.
60.
Tyng  CM, Amin  HU, Saad  MNM, Malik  AS.  The influences of emotion on learning and memory.   Front Psychol. 2017;8:1454. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454 PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Kadam  UT, Croft  P, McLeod  J, Hutchinson  M.  A qualitative study of patients’ views on anxiety and depression.   Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(466):375-380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
62.
Swenson  SL, Rose  M, Vittinghoff  E, Stewart  A, Schillinger  D.  The influence of depressive symptoms on clinician-patient communication among patients with type 2 diabetes.   Med Care. 2008;46(3):257-265. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31816080e9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
63.
Ye  J, Shim  R.  Perceptions of health care communication: examining the role of patients’ psychological distress.   J Natl Med Assoc. 2010;102(12):1237-1242. doi:10.1016/S0027-9684(15)30779-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
64.
Schenker  Y, Stewart  A, Na  B, Whooley  MA.  Depressive symptoms and perceived doctor-patient communication in the Heart and Soul Study.   J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(5):550-556. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0937-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
65.
Tyser  AR, Gaffney  CJ, Zhang  C, Presson  AP.  The association of patient satisfaction with pain, anxiety, and self-reported physical function.   J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(21):1811-1818. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00372 PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
Clignet  F, Houtjes  W, van Straten  A, Cuijpers  P, van Meijel  B.  Unmet care needs, care provision and patient satisfaction in patients with a late life depression: a cross-sectional study.   Aging Ment Health. 2019;23(4):491-497. doi:10.1080/13607863.2018.1426716 PubMedGoogle Scholar
67.
Dalgard  FJ, Gieler  U, Tomas-Aragones  L,  et al.  The psychological burden of skin diseases: a cross-sectional multicenter study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries.   J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(4):984-991. doi:10.1038/jid.2014.530 PubMedGoogle Scholar
68.
Dowlatshahi  EA, Wakkee  M, Arends  LR, Nijsten  T.  The prevalence and odds of depressive symptoms and clinical depression in psoriasis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(6):1542-1551. doi:10.1038/jid.2013.508 PubMedGoogle Scholar
69.
Fleming  P, Bai  JW, Pratt  M, Sibbald  C, Lynde  C, Gulliver  WP.  The prevalence of anxiety in patients with psoriasis: a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(5):798-807. doi:10.1111/jdv.13891 PubMedGoogle Scholar
70.
Bultman  DC, Svarstad  BL.  Effects of physician communication style on client medication beliefs and adherence with antidepressant treatment.   Patient Educ Couns. 2000;40(2):173-185. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00083-X PubMedGoogle Scholar
71.
Ha  JF, Longnecker  N.  Doctor-patient communication: a review.   Ochsner J. 2010;10(1):38-43. doi:10.1043/toj-09-0040.1PubMedGoogle Scholar
72.
Bhutani  T, Wong  JW, Bebo  BF, Armstrong  AW.  Access to health care in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: data from National Psoriasis Foundation survey panels.   JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(6):717-721. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.133 PubMedGoogle Scholar
73.
Pearce  DJ, Stealey  KH, Balkrishnan  R, Fleischer  AB  Jr, Feldman  SR.  Psoriasis treatment in the United States at the end of the 20th century.   Int J Dermatol. 2006;45(4):370-374. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2006.02532.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    Original Investigation
    May 6, 2020

    Association Between the Mental Health of Patients With Psoriasis and Their Satisfaction With Physicians

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
    • 2Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
    JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(7):754-762. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054
    Key Points

    Question  Is the mental health of patients with psoriasis associated with their satisfaction with physicians?

    Findings  This analysis of the medical records of 652 US adult patients with psoriasis (weighted total, 8 876 767 patients) found that patients with symptoms of psychological distress and depression reported lower satisfaction with their physicians than patients with no or fewer such symptoms.

    Meaning  Because patients’ baseline mental health may be associated with their perception of the physician, clinicians need to be adaptable and supportive when communicating with patients with mental health comorbidities.

    Abstract

    Importance  How patients’ mental health is associated with their satisfaction with physicians is rarely studied among adults with skin conditions.

    Objective  To examine the association between mental health comorbidities in patients with psoriasis and their satisfaction with physicians.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This retrospective survey analysis used 14 years of nationally representative longitudinal data on adults in the United States with psoriasis from the 2004-2017 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Statistical analysis was performed from October 1, 2018, to December 1, 2019. Mental health comorbidities were measured by performance on the Kessler 6-Item Psychological Distress Scale (score range, 0-24, where a score ≥13 is considered an indicator of a serious mental illness and significant psychological distress) and the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 (score range, 0-6, where a score ≥3 is considered a positive screening result for a depressive disorder).

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Patient satisfaction with physician, measured by the patient-physician communication composite score.

    Results  A weighted total of 8 876 767 US adults with psoriasis (unweighted total, 652 patients) (weighted; 54% women; mean [SEM] age, 52.1 [0.7] years) were analyzed; 27% of adults had moderate or severe symptoms of psychological distress, and 21% had moderate or severe symptoms of depression. Patients with moderate or severe psychological distress symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians compared with those with no or mild psychological distress symptoms (mean Kessler 6-Item Psychological Distress Scale scores for no or mild symptoms, 14.3 [95% CI, 14.2-14.4]; moderate symptoms, 13.2 [95% CI, 13.0-13.4]; and severe symptoms, 13.1 [95% CI, 12.5-13.7]; P < .001). In addition, compared with patients with no or mild psychological distress symptoms, patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.5-4.9]; P = .001), and patients with severe psychological distress symptoms were 2.3 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1-4.7]; P = .03). Furthermore, patients with moderate or severe depression symptoms were less satisfied with their clinicians compared with those with no or mild depression symptoms (mean Patient Health Questionnaire 2 scores for no or mild symptoms, 14.3 [95% CI, 14.2-14.4]; moderate symptoms, 13.2 [95% CI, 12.9-13.6]; and severe symptoms, 13.0 [95% CI, 12.6-13.4]; P = .002). In addition, compared with patients with no or mild depression symptoms, patients with moderate depression symptoms were 4.6 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio, 4.6 [95% CI, 2.1-10.0]; P < .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  This study suggests that patients with greater psychological distress and depression report lower satisfaction with their clinicians than those without such mental health symptoms. Clinicians need to be adaptable and supportive when communicating with patients with mental health comorbidities. Evaluating clinician performance solely based on patient satisfaction can be problematic and incomplete.

    Introduction

    Patients evaluate dermatologists and other dermatology clinicians on how well we communicate about their skin diseases and treatment plans. In the field of dermatology, dermatologists and dermatology clinicians generally receive high patient satisfaction ratings.1-4 However, dermatologists sometimes receive disparate evaluations by different patients. Why do some patients rate their dermatology clinicians poorly when most other patients rate the same clinicians highly?

    Traditional factors relevant to dermatology patients’ satisfaction with health care professionals include confidence in the clinician, provision of individualized care, and the quality of information provided.5-15 However, to our knowledge, the association between a patient’s baseline psychological state and his or her perception of the quality of patient-clinician interactions is unknown. So, are unhappy patients more likely than happy patients to rate lower patient satisfaction with their clinicians regardless of the actual quality of patient-clinician interactions? Understanding whether mental health comorbidities may be associated with patient satisfaction is important because greater patient satisfaction is associated with better practice and better patient outcomes.2,16-20

    A critical knowledge gap exists in this area. Addressing this knowledge gap enables dermatology clinicians to be more cognizant of the psychological factors that may be associated with patient satisfaction. In addition, addressing this knowledge gap will be foundational to improve our approaches to increase patient satisfaction, from enhancing communication styles to directly addressing patients’ underlying psychological state.

    This study aims to evaluate whether an association exists between a patient’s psychological state and the perception of patient-clinician encounters using nationally representative data collected with validated instruments. We chose to examine this question for patients with psoriasis owing to the chronicity of psoriasis, the varied psychological and mood states among patients with psoriasis, and the overall large disease burden.21-23

    Methods
    Data Source and Study Population

    This retrospective survey analysis used longitudinal data from the 2004-2017 Household Component of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is a publicly available database that uses a stratified, multistaged probability design to provide a nationally representative, noninstitutionalized sample of US adults that is followed up for approximately 2 consecutive years.24 The survey collects deidentified information on health care use, health care expenditures, and sociodemographic characteristics as well as physical and mental health comorbidities. This study was determined to be exempt by the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board because the MEPS comprises deidentified, publicly available data. This study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines.

    The study population included all adults (≥18 years) alive during the calendar year who reported a diagnosis of psoriasis, reported patient satisfaction with their clinician, and completed the Kessler 6-Item Psychological Distress Scale (K6) and/or the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 (PHQ2). We used the Medical Conditions data file to identify patients who had a diagnosis of psoriasis identified by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) code 696 or the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code L40. The MEPS database had been used previously to evaluate patients with psoriasis.25,26 We used the Full-Year Consolidated data file to obtain mental health comorbidity and patient satisfaction data. For analysis, we included patients who had complete data on demographic and clinical characteristics of interest.

    Variables
    Dependent Variable (Patient Satisfaction)

    The dependent variable was patient satisfaction as measured by the patient-physician communication composite score, a validated instrument that assesses a patient’s perception of the quality of patient-clinician communication.27,28 This measure collects patients’ responses to the following 4 patient-clinician communication domains: (1) listening carefully to patients, (2) explaining diagnoses and management in ways patients could understand, (3) showing respect for patients’ perspective, and (4) spending enough time with patients. Patients’ responses were scored using a 4-point Likert scale (1-4, where 1 indicates never and 4 indicates always). Global scores range from 4 to 16. Based on existing literature, the patient-physician composite scores were categorized into the following 3 groups: (1) low patient satisfaction (patient-physician composite score, 4-9), (2) medium patient satisfaction (patient-physician composite score, 10-15), and (3) high patient satisfaction (patient-physician composite score, 16).29-33

    Independent Variable (Mental Health Comorbidities)

    The independent variable (indicator) was mental health comorbidities as measured by the presence of psychological distress or depression symptoms. We favored the use of K6 and PHQ2 rather than ICD codes for anxiety and depression because the K6 and PHQ2 provided granular information regarding patients’ mental health symptoms and pertain only to patients exhibiting symptoms.

    The K6 scale is a validated 6-item measure of psychological distress. It evaluates aspects of nervousness, hopelessness, restlessness, depression, apathy, and worthlessness during a 30-day reference period.34,35 Each item is scored on a 5-point Likert scale (0-5, where 0 indicates none of the time and 4 indicates all of the time). Global scores range from 0 to 24; a score of 13 or more is considered an indicator of a serious mental illness and significant psychological distress.34 A validation study of mental health comorbidity measures in the MEPS database demonstrated that all K6 items loaded strongly on the mental health factor using factor analysis.36 The K6 scores were categorized into the following 3 groups: no or mild psychological distress symptoms (K6 score, 0 to <5), moderate psychological distress symptoms (K6 score, 5 to <13), and severe psychological distress symptoms (K6 score, 13-24).37

    The PHQ2 is a validated 2-item screening measure for depression.38,39 Responders are asked to report whether, during the past 2 weeks, they have been “feeling down, depressed, or hopeless” or have “little interest or pleasure in doing things.” Each item is scored on a 4-point Likert scale (0-3, where 0 indicates not at all and 3 indicates nearly every day). Global scores range from 0 to 6; a score of 3 or more is considered a positive screening result for a depressive disorder (sensitivity, 94%; specificity, 75%).39 The PHQ2 scores were categorized into the following 3 groups: no or mild depression symptoms (PHQ2 score, <1.5), moderate depression symptoms (PHQ2 sore, ≥1.5 to <3), and severe depression symptoms (PHQ2 score, 3-6).39,40

    Covariates

    We adjusted for potential demographic confounders, including age, sex (self-reported as female or male), race, ethnicity (Hispanic or non-Hispanic), marital status, employment status (employed or unemployed), educational level, poverty level category, the year the survey was conducted, and whether the patient and clinician speak the same language.41-46 We also adjusted for potential clinical confounders, including cognitive limitations, social limitations, and comorbidities. Cognitive limitations were defined as confusion or memory loss, problems making decisions, or the requirement of supervision for safety. Social limitations were defined as any social, recreational, or family activity limitations secondary to mental or physical impairments. Comorbidities were assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, excluding depression from the index owing to its collinearity with mental health comorbidity measures.47 The Charlson Comorbidity Index is a validated method of the estimated risk of mortality from comorbid disease and has been adapted for use with 3-digit ICD-9 codes.47-50 Its use in the MEPS is well described.51-54

    Statistical Analysis

    Statistical analysis was performed from October 1, 2018, to December 1, 2019. We conducted separate analyses for each mental health comorbidity measure (K6 and PHQ2). We performed a descriptive analysis of age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, educational level, poverty level category, cognitive limitations, social limitations, and year the survey was conducted and calculated the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We evaluated differences in sociodemographic and clinical factors between patients with varying severities of mental health symptoms using χ2 analyses for categorical variables and analysis of variance for continuous data.

    To determine whether differences exist in patient satisfaction among patients with varying severities of mental health symptoms, we performed a univariate analysis using analysis of variance. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the outcome of patient satisfaction, which was a binomial variable.

    To obtain nationally representative population sums, we applied person-level sampling weights and a variance estimation stratum. P ≤ .05 was established a priori as statistically significant for unadjusted comparisons. To address multiple hypothesis testing, P ≤ .004 was established using the Bonferroni correction (α/number of tested variables = 0.05/13 = 0.004) as statistically significant for adjusted comparisons. For all statistical analyses of the MEPS survey data, we applied the appropriate survey commands using STATA, version 13.0 (StataCorp LLC).

    Results
    Study Population Characteristics

    Among a weighted total of 13 965 002 US adults with psoriasis (unweighted, 1385 US adults with psoriasis) who reported mental health comorbidities during a 14-year period from the 2004-2017 MEPS database, approximately 36% were excluded from the analysis owing to missing data. A comparison of sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the original population with incomplete data and the analyzed population with complete data showed overall similar population-level characteristics and are detailed in eTables 1 and 2 in the Supplement.

    A weighted total of 8 876 767 patients (unweighted, 652 patients) were included in the analysis. The mean (SEM) age was 52.1 (0.7) years. Women comprised 54% of the population, and men comprised 46% of the population. The mean patient satisfaction score was 14.0 (95% CI, 13.8-14.2).

    Kessler 6-Item Psychological Distress Scale

    Regarding psychological distress, 73% of patients had no or mild symptoms, 22% had moderate symptoms, and 5% had severe symptoms (Table 1). The mean patient satisfaction score was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.2-14.4) for patients with no or mild psychological distress symptoms, 13.2 (95% CI, 13.0-13.4) for patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms, and 13.1 (95% CI, 12.5-13.7) for patients with severe psychological distress symptoms (P < .001) (Figure). Unadjusted logistic regression found that, compared with patients with no or mild psychological distress symptoms, patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 3.0 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinician (odds ratio [OR], 3.0 [95% CI, 1.7-5.4]; P < .001).

    Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics found that, compared with patients with no or mild psychological distress symptoms, patients with moderate psychological distress symptoms were 2.8 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinician (adjusted OR [AOR], 2.8 [95% CI, 1.5-4.9]; P = .001), and patients with severe psychological distress symptoms were 2.3 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinicians (AOR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.1-4.7]; P = .03) (Table 2).

    Patient Health Questionnaire 2

    Regarding depression, 79% had no or mild symptoms, 13% had moderate symptoms, and 8% had severe symptoms (Table 1). The mean patient satisfaction score was 14.3 (95% CI, 14.2-14.4) for patients with no or mild depression symptoms, 13.2 (95% CI, 12.9-13.6) for patients with moderate depression symptoms, and 13.0 (95% CI, 12.6-13.4) (P = .002) for patients with severe depression symptoms (Figure).

    Unadjusted logistic regression found that, compared with patients with no or mild depression symptoms, patients with moderate depression symptoms were 3.8 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinician (OR, 3.8 [95% CI, 1.8-7.9]; P = .001), and patients with severe depression symptoms were 2.3 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinician (OR, 2.3 [95% CI, 1.2-4.2]; P = .009). Multivariate logistic regression adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics found that, compared with patients with no or mild depression symptoms, patients with moderate depression symptoms were 4.6 times more likely to report low patient satisfaction with their clinician (AOR, 4.6 [95% CI, 2.1-10.0]; P < .001) (Table 2).

    Discussion

    This study examined a critical gap in the association between the mental health of patients with psoriasis and their perception of the quality of patient-clinician interactions. Based on this nationally representative population of adults with psoriasis spanning 14 years, compared with patients with no mental health symptoms, patients with psychological distress and depressive symptoms are more likely to report lower satisfaction with their physicians.

    Specifically, patients with moderate or severe psychological distress and patients with moderate depression symptoms were more likely to report low patient satisfaction with clinicians regardless of sociodemographic factors or comorbidities. Therefore, it is possible that patients’ mental health status may be associated with their perception of the quality of interactions with health care professionals. However, further research is necessary to confirm the directionality of the findings.

    These findings are informative for the following reasons. Even if clinicians delivered consistent high-quality care, some patients may perceive such care to be inferior owing, at least in part, to their baseline mental health status. For example, a patient who has depressive symptoms at baseline is more likely than another patient without depressive symptoms to rate a clinician poorly. Prior research in other chronic diseases may provide a rationale for this observation.55-58 In some patients, the “pervasiveness” of mental health illness, defined as a general negative outlook on life, may predispose them to be particularly sensitive to the suboptimal components of the patient-clinician interaction.59 In addition, cognitive impairments associated with mental health illnesses can be associated with a patient’s ability to engage with the clinician or comprehend or recall information from the encounter.60-62

    Our findings corroborate and extend those from studies of other chronic diseases.63,64 For example, for patients with chronic coronary disease, depressive symptoms were strongly associated with a negative perception of their clinicians.64 Furthermore, patients with depressive symptoms are also more likely to report overall dissatisfaction with other aspects of health care delivery regardless of disease severity or comorbidities.63-66

    Recognizing the association between a patient’s baseline mental health status and a patient’s satisfaction is critical in caring for patients with psoriasis because one-third of patients with psoriasis present with symptoms of depression and anxiety.67-69 Improving the patient experience among those with mental health comorbidities is important because increased patient satisfaction may be associated with greater treatment adherence and better health outcomes.2,16-20

    When caring for patients with mental health symptoms, dermatology clinicians may need to be more adaptive in their communication style.20,70,71 Because depressed patients can be more sensitive to negative communication, the clinician needs to be more conscious about using a positive and supportive communication style. In addition, clinicians need to provide context when discussing the effectiveness and the potential adverse effects of treatment such that patients can evaluate the treatments accurately.

    Furthermore, these study findings are especially relevant when we evaluate clinicians based on the results of patient satisfaction surveys. Patient surveys with small sample sizes, nonrandom sampling, or low response rates need to be interpreted with skepticism and caution. Also, comparing a clinician’s performance based solely on patient satisfaction is problematic because different physicians may treat different patient populations with varying baseline mental health status.

    Limitations

    This study has some limitations, and our findings need to be interpreted in the context of the study design. The MEPS database does not collect data on physicians’ perceptions of the quality of an encounter, thereby limiting a comparison of patient and clinician perceptions. In addition, the MEPS does not capture other factors that may be associated with the mental health status of patients with psoriasis and their satisfaction with their clinician, such as psoriasis disease severity and treatment responses. Because the MEPS methods enable the calculation of national estimates, the study findings are generalizable to patients with psoriasis in the United States. The findings are mostly, but not entirely, generalizable to dermatology clinicians in the United States because the MEPS does not specify whether clinicians caring for patients with psoriasis were dermatologists. However, based on other national studies, most psoriasis clinicians are dermatologists.72,73

    Conclusions

    Our study found that psychological distress and depression symptoms were associated with lower patient satisfaction with clinicians among adults with psoriasis. A patient’s baseline mental health, at least in part, is associated with their perception of the health care professional. It is important for clinicians to be adaptable and supportive in their communication style in caring for these patients. It is also important to recognize that evaluating clinician performance solely based on patient satisfaction can be problematic and incomplete.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: March 10, 2020.

    Corresponding Author: April W. Armstrong, MD, MPH, Department of Dermatology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1975 Zonal Ave, KAM B6, Los Angeles, CA 90089 (armstrongpublication@gmail.com).

    Published Online: May 6, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.1054

    Author Contributions: Drs Read and Armstrong had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Both authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Both authors.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Both authors.

    Statistical analysis: Read.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Armstrong.

    Supervision: Armstrong.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Read reported receiving grants from the National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) during the conduct of the study. Dr Armstrong reported receiving grants and personal fees from Abbvie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc, Leo Pharma, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and UCB Pharma; personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Merck, Modernizing Medicine, Ortho Dermatologics, Pfizer Inc, Sanofi Genzyme, and Celgene; and grants from Dermira and Kyowa Hakko Kirin outside the submitted work.

    Funding/Support: This study was funded by the NPF/USA.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Information: This study was conducted with publicly available, deidentified data from the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality’s Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.

    References
    1.
    Augustin  M, Eissing  L, Elsner  P,  et al.  Perception and image of dermatology in the German general population 2002-2014.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(12):2124-2130. doi:10.1111/jdv.14476 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    2.
    Poulos  GA, Brodell  RT, Mostow  EN.  Improving quality and patient satisfaction in dermatology office practice.   Arch Dermatol. 2008;144(2):263-265. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2007.58 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    3.
    Camacho  FT, Balkrishnan  R, Khanna  V,  et al.  How happy are dermatologists’ patients? a review of a study examining patients’ perceptions of dermatology practices.   Dermatologist. 2013;21(4):38-42.Google Scholar
    4.
    Richard  MA, Joly  P, Roy Geffroy  B, Taïeb  C.  Public perception of dermatologists in France: results from a population-based national survey.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(8):1610-1615. doi:10.1111/jdv.15541 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Coast  J, Horrocks  S.  Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods.   J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):25-30. doi:10.1258/135581907779497602 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    6.
    Noerreslet  M, Jemec  GBE, Traulsen  JM.  Involuntary autonomy: patients’ perceptions of physicians, conventional medicines and risks in the management of atopic dermatitis.   Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(9):1409-1415. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.08.036 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    7.
    Gibbons  C, Singh  S, Gibbons  B,  et al.  Using qualitative methods to understand factors contributing to patient satisfaction among dermatology patients: a systematic review.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2018;29(3):290-294. doi:10.1080/09546634.2017.1364688 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    8.
    van Scheppingen  C, Lettinga  AT, Duipmans  JC, Maathuis  CGB, Jonkman  MF.  Main problems experienced by children with epidermolysis bullosa: a qualitative study with semi-structured interviews.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2008;88(2):143-150. doi:10.2340/00015555-0376 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    9.
    Magin  PJ, Adams  J, Heading  GS, Pond  CD.  Patients with skin disease and their relationships with their doctors: a qualitative study of patients with acne, psoriasis and eczema.   Med J Aust. 2009;190(2):62-64. doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02276.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    10.
    Collins  K, Walters  S, Bowns  I.  Patient satisfaction with teledermatology: quantitative and qualitative results from a randomized controlled trial.   J Telemed Telecare. 2004;10(1):29-33. doi:10.1258/135763304322764167 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    11.
    Andreassen  HK.  What does an email address add?—doing health and technology at home.   Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(4):521-528. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.11.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    12.
    Ersser  SJ, Surridge  H, Wiles  A.  What criteria do patients use when judging the effectiveness of psoriasis management?   J Eval Clin Pract. 2002;8(4):367-376. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2753.2002.00372.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    13.
    Nelson  PA, Barker  Z, Griffiths  CE, Cordingley  L, Chew-Graham  CA; IMPACT Team.  “On the surface”: a qualitative study of GPs’ and patients’ perspectives on psoriasis.   BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:158. doi:10.1186/1471-2296-14-158 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    14.
    Waernulf  L, Moberg  C, Henriksson  EW, Evengard  B, Nyberg  F.  Patients’ views on care and treatment after phototherapy for psoriasis and atopic eczema including a gender perspective.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2008;19(4):233-240. doi:10.1080/09546630801955127 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    15.
    Halldin  CB, Gonzalez  H, Wennberg  AM, Lepp  M.  Patients’ experiences of pain and pain relief during photodynamic therapy on actinic keratoses: an interview study.   Acta Derm Venereol. 2013;93(4):433-437. doi:10.2340/00015555-1500 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    16.
    Kaplan  SH, Greenfield  S, Ware  JE  Jr.  Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease.   Med Care. 1989;27(3)(suppl):S110-S127. doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010PubMedGoogle Scholar
    17.
    Stelfox  HT, Gandhi  TK, Orav  EJ, Gustafson  ML.  The relation of patient satisfaction with complaints against physicians and malpractice lawsuits.   Am J Med. 2005;118(10):1126-1133. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.060 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    18.
    Doyle  C, Lennox  L, Bell  D.  A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness.   BMJ Open. 2013;3(1):e001570. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    19.
    Dubina  MI, O’Neill  JL, Feldman  SR.  Effect of patient satisfaction on outcomes of care.   Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2009;9(5):393-395. doi:10.1586/erp.09.45 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Stewart  MA.  Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review.   CMAJ. 1995;152(9):1423-1433.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    21.
    Hayes  J, Koo  J.  Psoriasis: depression, anxiety, smoking, and drinking habits.   Dermatol Ther. 2010;23(2):174-180. doi:10.1111/j.1529-8019.2010.01312.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    22.
    Kurd  SK, Troxel  AB, Crits-Christoph  P, Gelfand  JM.  The risk of depression, anxiety, and suicidality in patients with psoriasis: a population-based cohort study.   Arch Dermatol. 2010;146(8):891-895. doi:10.1001/archdermatol.2010.186PubMedGoogle Scholar
    23.
    Liang  SE, Cohen  JM, Ho  RS.  Psoriasis and suicidality: a review of the literature.   Dermatol Ther. 2019;32(1):e12771. doi:10.1111/dth.12771 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    24.
    Cohen  JW, Cohen  SB, Banthin  JS.  The Medical Expenditure Panel Survey: a national information resource to support healthcare cost research and inform policy and practice.   Med Care. 2009;47(7)(suppl 1):S44-S50. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181a23e3a PubMedGoogle Scholar
    25.
    Fischer  AH, Shin  DB, Gelfand  JM, Takeshita  J.  Health care utilization for psoriasis in the United States differs by race: an analysis of the 2001-2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(1):200-203. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2017.07.052 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    26.
    Salame  N, Ehsani-Chimeh  N, Armstrong  AW.  Comparison of mental health outcomes among adults with psoriasis on biologic versus oral therapies: a population-based study.   J Dermatolog Treat. 2019;30(2):135-140. doi:10.1080/09546634.2018.1476654 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    27.
    McGee  J, Kanouse  DE, Sofaer  S, Hargraves  JL, Hoy  E, Kleimann  S; Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study.  Making survey results easy to report to consumers: how reporting needs guided survey design in CAHPS.   Med Care. 1999;37(3)(suppl):MS32-MS40. doi:10.1097/00005650-199903001-00004 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    28.
    Hargraves  JL, Hays  RD, Cleary  PD.  Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS) 2.0 adult core survey.   Health Serv Res. 2003;38(6, pt 1):1509-1527. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6773.2003.00190.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    29.
    Okunrintemi  V, Spatz  ES, Di Capua  P,  et al.  Patient-provider communication and health outcomes among individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in the United States: Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2010 to 2013.   Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017;10(4):e003635. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.117.003635 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    30.
    Rutten  LJF, Augustson  E, Wanke  K.  Factors associated with patients’ perceptions of health care providers’ communication behavior.   J Health Commun. 2006;11(suppl 1):135-146. doi:10.1080/10810730600639596 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    31.
    Ok  H, Marks  R, Allegrante  JP.  Perceptions of health care provider communication activity among American cancer survivors and adults without cancer histories: an analysis of the 2003 Health Information Trends Survey (HINTS) data.   J Health Commun. 2008;13(7):637-653. doi:10.1080/10810730802412172 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    32.
    Calo  WA, Ortiz  AP, Colon-Lopez  V, Krasny  S, Tortolero-Luna  G.  Factors associated with perceived patient-provider communication quality among Puerto Ricans.   J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(2):491-502. doi:10.1353/hpu.2014.0074 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    33.
    Cerier  E, Beal  EW, Chakedis  J,  et al.  Patient-provider relationships and health outcomes among hepatopancreatobiliary patients.   J Surg Res. 2018;228:290-298. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.03.026 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    34.
    Kessler  RC, Barker  PR, Colpe  LJ,  et al.  Screening for serious mental illness in the general population.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    35.
    Kessler  RC, Andrews  G, Colpe  LJ,  et al.  Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress.   Psychol Med. 2002;32(6):959-976. doi:10.1017/S0033291702006074 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    36.
    Fleishman  JA, Zuvekas  SH.  Global self-rated mental health: associations with other mental health measures and with role functioning.   Med Care. 2007;45(7):602-609. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31803bb4b0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    37.
    Prochaska  JJ, Sung  HY, Max  W, Shi  Y, Ong  M.  Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization.   Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2012;21(2):88-97. doi:10.1002/mpr.1349 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Löwe  B, Kroenke  K, Gräfe  K.  Detecting and monitoring depression with a two-item questionnaire (PHQ-2).   J Psychosom Res. 2005;58(2):163-171. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.09.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    39.
    Kroenke  K, Spitzer  RL, Williams  JBW.  The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener.   Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284-1292. doi:10.1097/01.MLR.0000093487.78664.3C PubMedGoogle Scholar
    40.
    Read  C, Armstrong  AW.  Do mental health comorbidities influence patient satisfaction? a population study among U.S adults with psoriasis.   J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139(5)(suppl):S36. doi:10.1016/j.jid.2019.03.285 Google Scholar
    41.
    Dreger  S, Buck  C, Bolte  G.  Material, psychosocial and sociodemographic determinants are associated with positive mental health in Europe: a cross-sectional study.   BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005095. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005095 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    Lyketsos  CG, Lopez  O, Jones  B, Fitzpatrick  AL, Breitner  J, DeKosky  S.  Prevalence of neuropsychiatric symptoms in dementia and mild cognitive impairment: results from the Cardiovascular Health Study.   JAMA. 2002;288(12):1475-1483. doi:10.1001/jama.288.12.1475 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    43.
    Tefft  N.  Mental health and employment: the SAD story.   Econ Hum Biol. 2012;10(3):242-255. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2011.08.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    44.
    Meyer  OL, Castro-Schilo  L, Aguilar-Gaxiola  S.  Determinants of mental health and self-rated health: a model of socioeconomic status, neighborhood safety, and physical activity.   Am J Public Health. 2014;104(9):1734-1741. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302003 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    45.
    Kessler  RC, McGonagle  KA, Zhao  S,  et al.  Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey.   Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(1):8-19. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1994.03950010008002 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    46.
    Robins  LN, Regier  DA, eds.  Psychiatric Disorders in America: The Epidemiologic Catchment Area Study. The Free Press; 1991:17.
    47.
    Charlson  ME, Pompei  P, Ales  KL, MacKenzie  CR.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.   J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373-383. doi:10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    48.
    D’Hoore  W, Bouckaert  A, Tilquin  C.  Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson Comorbidity Index with administrative data bases.   J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1429-1433. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(96)00271-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    49.
    D’Hoore  W, Sicotte  C, Tilquin  C.  Risk adjustment in outcome assessment: the Charlson Comorbidity Index.   Methods Inf Med. 1993;32(5):382-387. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634956 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    50.
    de Groot  V, Beckerman  H, Lankhorst  GJ, Bouter  LM.  How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(3):221-229. doi:10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00585-1 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    51.
    Okunrintemi  V, Benson  EA, Tibuakuu  M,  et al.  Trends and costs associated with suboptimal physical activity among US women with cardiovascular disease.   JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(4):e191977. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1977 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    52.
    Tripathi  R, Knusel  KD, Ezaldein  HH, Honaker  JS, Bordeaux  JS, Scott  JF.  Incremental health care expenditure of chronic cutaneous ulcers in the United States.   JAMA Dermatol. 2019;155(6):694-699. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2018.5942 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    53.
    Kulkarni  AS, Balkrishnan  R, Richmond  D, Pearce  DJ, Feldman  SR.  Medication-related factors affecting health care outcomes and costs for patients with psoriasis in the United States.   J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52(1):27-31. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.08.004 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    54.
    Caulley  L, Thavorn  K, Rudmik  L, Cameron  C, Kilty  SJ.  Direct costs of adult chronic rhinosinusitis by using 4 methods of estimation: results of the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey.   J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136(6):1517-1522. doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2015.08.037 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    55.
    Street  RL  Jr, Makoul  G, Arora  NK, Epstein  RM.  How does communication heal? pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes.   Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74(3):295-301. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    56.
    Jackson  JL.  Communication about symptoms in primary care: impact on patient outcomes.   J Altern Complement Med. 2005;11(suppl 1):S51-S56. doi:10.1089/acm.2005.11.s-51 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    57.
    Epstein  RM, Street  RL  Jr. Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering. National Cancer Institute; 2007. NIH Publication 07-6225. Accessed January 19, 2020. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/docs/pcc_monograph.pdf
    58.
    Arora  NK.  Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians’ communication behavior.   Soc Sci Med. 2003;57(5):791-806. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00449-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    59.
    Roter  D, Hall  J.  Doctors Talking With Patients/Patients Talking With Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. 2nd ed. Praeger; 2006.
    60.
    Tyng  CM, Amin  HU, Saad  MNM, Malik  AS.  The influences of emotion on learning and memory.   Front Psychol. 2017;8:1454. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01454 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    61.
    Kadam  UT, Croft  P, McLeod  J, Hutchinson  M.  A qualitative study of patients’ views on anxiety and depression.   Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51(466):375-380.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    62.
    Swenson  SL, Rose  M, Vittinghoff  E, Stewart  A, Schillinger  D.  The influence of depressive symptoms on clinician-patient communication among patients with type 2 diabetes.   Med Care. 2008;46(3):257-265. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e31816080e9 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    63.
    Ye  J, Shim  R.  Perceptions of health care communication: examining the role of patients’ psychological distress.   J Natl Med Assoc. 2010;102(12):1237-1242. doi:10.1016/S0027-9684(15)30779-3 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    64.
    Schenker  Y, Stewart  A, Na  B, Whooley  MA.  Depressive symptoms and perceived doctor-patient communication in the Heart and Soul Study.   J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(5):550-556. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0937-5 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    65.
    Tyser  AR, Gaffney  CJ, Zhang  C, Presson  AP.  The association of patient satisfaction with pain, anxiety, and self-reported physical function.   J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(21):1811-1818. doi:10.2106/JBJS.17.00372 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    66.
    Clignet  F, Houtjes  W, van Straten  A, Cuijpers  P, van Meijel  B.  Unmet care needs, care provision and patient satisfaction in patients with a late life depression: a cross-sectional study.   Aging Ment Health. 2019;23(4):491-497. doi:10.1080/13607863.2018.1426716 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    67.
    Dalgard  FJ, Gieler  U, Tomas-Aragones  L,  et al.  The psychological burden of skin diseases: a cross-sectional multicenter study among dermatological out-patients in 13 European countries.   J Invest Dermatol. 2015;135(4):984-991. doi:10.1038/jid.2014.530 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    68.
    Dowlatshahi  EA, Wakkee  M, Arends  LR, Nijsten  T.  The prevalence and odds of depressive symptoms and clinical depression in psoriasis patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Invest Dermatol. 2014;134(6):1542-1551. doi:10.1038/jid.2013.508 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    69.
    Fleming  P, Bai  JW, Pratt  M, Sibbald  C, Lynde  C, Gulliver  WP.  The prevalence of anxiety in patients with psoriasis: a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials.   J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2017;31(5):798-807. doi:10.1111/jdv.13891 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    70.
    Bultman  DC, Svarstad  BL.  Effects of physician communication style on client medication beliefs and adherence with antidepressant treatment.   Patient Educ Couns. 2000;40(2):173-185. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(99)00083-X PubMedGoogle Scholar
    71.
    Ha  JF, Longnecker  N.  Doctor-patient communication: a review.   Ochsner J. 2010;10(1):38-43. doi:10.1043/toj-09-0040.1PubMedGoogle Scholar
    72.
    Bhutani  T, Wong  JW, Bebo  BF, Armstrong  AW.  Access to health care in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis: data from National Psoriasis Foundation survey panels.   JAMA Dermatol. 2013;149(6):717-721. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.133 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    73.
    Pearce  DJ, Stealey  KH, Balkrishnan  R, Fleischer  AB  Jr, Feldman  SR.  Psoriasis treatment in the United States at the end of the 20th century.   Int J Dermatol. 2006;45(4):370-374. doi:10.1111/j.1365-4632.2006.02532.x PubMedGoogle Scholar
    ×