"We Need a Supportive Clinic": Comparing the Effects of Patient-Centered Communication and Perceived Social Isolation on Subjective Well-Being Between LGBs and Heterosexuals.
{"title":"\"We Need a Supportive Clinic\": Comparing the Effects of Patient-Centered Communication and Perceived Social Isolation on Subjective Well-Being Between LGBs and Heterosexuals.","authors":"Yang Wu, Yiqian Gao","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2025.2464809","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current literature lauds patient-centered communication for its potential to improve patient health outcomes, particularly by enhancing social support. However, this study presents a more nuanced and even contrasting narrative. Grounded in Minority Stress Theory and utilizing secondary survey data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 6), the study uncovers three key findings. First, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals experience greater health disparities than heterosexuals, reporting notably lower levels of patient-centered communication and subjective well-being (both hedonic and eudaimonic) while higher levels of sense of social isolation. Second, patient-centered communication has the potential to either enhance or worsen both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being by alleviating or exacerbating perceived social isolation. Third, this mediation mechanism is not exclusive to gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals but applies to heterosexuals as well. Given that patient-centered communication can both mitigate and exacerbate patients' feelings of social isolation and that sense of social isolation remains a pervasive concern across populations (minority groups in particular), this study underscores the critical need for developing culturally competent healthcare environments for all (minority groups), extending beyond sexual orientation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2464809","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The current literature lauds patient-centered communication for its potential to improve patient health outcomes, particularly by enhancing social support. However, this study presents a more nuanced and even contrasting narrative. Grounded in Minority Stress Theory and utilizing secondary survey data from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS 6), the study uncovers three key findings. First, gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals experience greater health disparities than heterosexuals, reporting notably lower levels of patient-centered communication and subjective well-being (both hedonic and eudaimonic) while higher levels of sense of social isolation. Second, patient-centered communication has the potential to either enhance or worsen both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being by alleviating or exacerbating perceived social isolation. Third, this mediation mechanism is not exclusive to gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals but applies to heterosexuals as well. Given that patient-centered communication can both mitigate and exacerbate patients' feelings of social isolation and that sense of social isolation remains a pervasive concern across populations (minority groups in particular), this study underscores the critical need for developing culturally competent healthcare environments for all (minority groups), extending beyond sexual orientation.
期刊介绍:
As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.