Skip to main content
Download PDF

Attachment styles and healthcare utilization: exploring the role of the patient-doctor relationship

BMC Health Services Research volume 24, Article number: 63 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

With the purpose of improving healthcare, past research has examined the link between healthcare utilization and attachment. It is suggested that an individual’s attachment style influences both the quality of their patient-physician relationship and healthcare utilization patterns. Nevertheless, most studies concentrate on the individual aspect, overlooking the dyadic dimension; specifically, the investigation of how insecure attachment relates to health behavior within patient-physician relationships. This gap leaves the role of the patient-doctor relationship in this process unclear. Therefore, to elucidate this complex interplay, we hypothesized that the correlation between attachment and healthcare utilization is mediated by the quality of the patient-physician-relationship.

Method

Participant selection was based on electoral districts, a random-route procedure, and the Kish selection grid. The participants were visited by a trained interviewer who collected psychometric and sociodemographic information. Participants answered the Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire (ECR-RD8) and the Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9). Additionally, participants were asked about their healthcare utilization. The final sample consisted of N = 2.275 participants.

Results

In average the participants reported consulting their primary health care practitioner M(SD) = 4.44 (4.76) times in the past 12 months. Generally, the participants rated the quality of the relationship with their primary health care practitioner close to “totally appropriate” (M = 4.12 ± .69). The degree of insecure attachment manifested towards the lower extremity of the scale. The total effect of the mediation analyses was significant. Regardless, the indirect effect indicated a trend result with minimal effect sizes.

Conclusion

The findings of the current study bridged the gap between attachment styles and healthcare utilization. Nonetheless, our results suggested insufficient support for the mediating role of the primary care physician in the relationship between attachment style and healthcare utilization. Considering the characteristics of the sample, this outcome may not apply in a clinical context. However, further research is needed to shed light in the revealed trends and indicate implications.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The attachment theory [1] provides a psychosocial framework for understanding the relationship between attachment-styles and health-related behaviors [2,3,4]. Since attachment processes are closely related to emotion regulation and coping behavior (e.g., illness [1, 5, 6];, they predict health behaviors [7] and outcomes [8, 9]. Attachment is a fundamental need [1] and is also perceived a stable trait [10] notably activated during vulnerable times. “Attachment styles” are conceptualized as interpersonal dynamics [1, 11,12,13] categorized as secure and insecure attachment-styles (i. e., dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful [1, 14]).

The present research is based on the concept of attachment-related anxiety and avoidance [13, 14]. These dimensions conceptualize self-regulation mechanisms for seeking emotional proximity to an attachment figure during stressful events (e. g., sickness and distress). Anxious attachment-style is related to “clingy” and “controlling” behaviors, while avoidant-attachment is linked to mistrust and reclusive of social relationships [15]. Consistent with this framework, past evidence demonstrates that insecure attachment styles are predictive of unhealthy behaviors [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. However, both with different patterns health care utilization. On the one hand, anxious-attached patients display attention-seeking behavior and overuse health services [3, 23, 24]. On the other hand, avoidant-attached patients tend to underuse health care [15, 22, 25] and engage in self-treatment [24]. This pattern was also observed in the context of primary care. Ciechanowski et al. [26] found that (female) patients with preoccupied attachment had the highest primary care costs and utilization, whereas patients with fearful attachment the lowest.

A strong physician-patient relationship is paramount for effective treatment [27,28,29,30]. However, there are not many studies on how the quality of the dyadic physician–patient relationship impacts the use of primary health care practitioners (PCP) [31] and current results are mixed. Nonetheless, empirical evidences suggests that a better primary practitioner-patient relationship was positively correlated associated with increased consultations [31,32,33,34]. Fenton et al. [35] showed a similar outcome, reporting that a satisfactory physician-patient relationship was associated to higher overall healthcare utilization. On the other hand, Dinkel et al. [31] found that a strong family physician–patient relationship was not correlated with frequent visits to the PCP. Even so, these studies did not assess attachment, which is likely to affect the patient-physician-relationship [3, 36]. Since patients with insecure attachment styles show difficulties in the patient-physician relationship [37, 38] and mistrust health care providers [26, 39, 40], they might avoid visits to the doctor [40, 41].

Based on the presented background, one may assume that physicians, as the experts might be perceived as an attachment fig [37, 42]. As such, the PCP may active attachment pathways in the patient manifesting in a certain healthcare-seeking or avoidant behavior. Consequently, we hypothesized that the patient-physician relationship may mediate the link between the attachment-style and healthcare utilization patterns.

In summary, research indicates that an individual’s attachment style impacts both the quality of their patient-physician relationship and healthcare utilization patterns. However, most studies focus on the individual dimension, rather than the dyadic level, i. e., exploring how insecure attachment relates to health behavior within patient-physician relationships. This gap leaves the role of the patient-doctor relationship in this process unclear. Hitherto, two studies evinced that the quality of the patient-provider relationship serves a mediator, however, between attachment and self-management in clinical samples [24, 43]. To the best of our knowledge this is the first study to examine this association in the context of PCP and in a representative sample of the German population. Based on the established correlation between attachment and health care use, we predicted that this correlation is mediated by the quality of the specific relationship with the PCP. To this end, we conducted mediational analysis (see Figs. 1 and 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Mediation analysis: PDRQ-9 mediates the correlation between the attachment-style: avoidance and health care use (visits to the primary care practitioner in the last 12 months). Note: Indirect effect: (a) x (b). Direct effect: (c). Total effect: direct + indirect; p = *** < .001; ** = .005; =* < .05

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Mediation analysis: PDRQ-9 mediates the correlation between the attachment-style: anxiety and health care use (visits to the primary care practitioner in the last 12 months). Note: Indirect effect: (a) x (b). Direct effect: (c). Total effect: direct + indirect; p = *** < .001; ** = .005; =* < .05

Full size image

Methods

Study participants

A representative sample of the German population was carefully selected with the assistance of a demographic consulting company (USUMA, Berlin, Germany). A total of N = 4360 participants were contacted to participate in the self-report survey. In total, N = 1852 participants did not collaborate with this self-report survey for several reasons (n = 647 unsuccessful attempts to contact, n = 591 declined to participate, n = 37 holiday break, n = 19 severe illness, n = 540 refused to finish the whole interview). The survey asked the participants whether they had a primary care physician (PCP). In the case of a positive response to this question, the person was asked to complete the Patient-Doctor-Relationship-Questionnaire-9 (PDRQ-9).

In total, N = 2508 individuals participated in the study (participation rate 58%) during June – July, 2013. Participants who did not visited their PCP were not included in the analyses. Participants with missing data in at least one of the items (n = 233) were excluded from the analysis. The final sample consisted of N = 2275 participants. The majority of the participants in the sample held German citizenship (96.7%) and were in average of 51 years (± 18). Further details about the sample can be found in Table 1, which provides a description of the participants’ characteristics.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of the study population
Full size table

Procedures

The study participants were selected based on a random sample selection consisting in a multistage sampling. First, 258 sample point regions, covering rural and urban areas from all regions in Germany, were randomly drawn from the most recent political election register. The second stage was a random selection of household using the random route procedure (based on a starting address). The third stage was a random selection of household respondents using the Kish selection grid. The aim of the sampling procedure was to obtain a sample that was representative of the German population in terms of age, gender, and education. Participant selection based on electoral districts, a random-route procedure, and the Kish selection grid led to a sample representative of the German general population in terms of sex and age. Only participants with sufficient command of the German language were included in the study. Each respondent was visited by a trained interviewer who – after the respondent gave informed consent – collected information. All participants were informed of the study procedures, data collection, and anonymization of all personal data. Additionally, a detailed data privacy statement was delivered by the interviewer. The present study posed a low risk to the participants, as procedures such as medical treatments, invasive diagnostics or procedures causing psychological or social harm were not included in the present study. Therefore, according to German law, all participants provided verbal informed consent. Furthermore, the study was conducted in accordance to the guidelines of the ICMJE Recommendations for the Protection of Research Participants and the Helsinki Declaration as revised 2008. The study and procedure were approved by the institutional ethics review board of the University of Leipzig (Ethics Nr. 050/13–11,032,013). Furthermore, the study was executed according to the guidelines of the ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice.

Measures

The Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised questionnaire (ECR-RD8 [44];) measures attachment-related anxiety and avoidance with 8 items, e.g.: “I often worry that my partner will not want to stay with me” (anxiety); “I am comfortable sharing my private thoughts and feelings with my partner” (avoidance). The individual anxiety and avoidance scores are obtained by calculating the mean of the respective items. All items of the avoidance subscale are inverse coded. Items scores range from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”. Regarding the convergent validity of the subscale anxiety is moderately correlated with lower scores on the secure scale and higher scores on the preoccupied and fearful subscales of the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ [14];). Similarly, attachment avoidance correlated moderately with the RQ-subscales secure (negative correlation) and fearful. The correlation between attachment avoidance and RQ-dismissing was small. The reliability of the ECR-RD8 can be rated as high (ω = 0.87; anxiety and ω = 0.91; avoidance subscale).

The Patient-Doctor Relationship Questionnaire (PDRQ-9 [45, 46];) was originally developed as an assessment tool of the relationship between the PCP and the patient’s perspective [45]. The scale was adapted from an existing instrument based on the Helping Alliance Questionnaire (HAQ [47];), which is often applied in primary care and public health research. The PDRQ-9 is a unidimensional tool that evaluates the patient’s experience. The latter relate to several aspects of their relationship (e.g., time available, understanding, openness) using nine questions on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 = not at all appropriate” to “5 = totally appropriate.” In a validation study [46], the patient-doctor relationship with a focus on the empathic style and availability of the doctor was assessed. A higher average score suggests a stronger relationship [45]. Past evidence shows good psychometric properties (e. g., α = .95 [45, 46, 48,49,50];.

Healthcare utilization

To operationalize healthcare utilization, the participants were asked to respond if and how frequently they consulted their primary care practitioner in the last 12 months. Only participants who visited their PCP were included and the total number of visits in the past 12 months was then calculated. All items were assessed according to the National Health Interview and Examination Survey [51, 52]. This scoring system provided a quantifiable measure of the participants’ utilization of healthcare services and has been used in similar past studies [26, 31].

Statistical analyses

The statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 24.0) and R [53]. In the present study, we reported the mean and standard deviation of the examined variables (Table 2) and the Person moment correlation coefficients between the examined variables. To test our main hypothesis, we conducted a mediation analysis with attachment-style (i.e., anxious and avoidant respectively) as a predictor, the PDRQ-9 as the mediator and healthcare utilization as the outcome variable. Specifically, we built this mediation model in a structural equation model (SEM) using lavaan [54] to estimate (using the robust maximum likelihood estimator) and test path coefficients and the indirect effect. The lavaan package is a common tool for conducting structural equation modeling [54]. In this regard, it has been applied for mediation analysis [55] among other analyses. Healthcare utilization was operationalized by frequencies (number of consults in the past 12 months), as reported by the participants (see Table 2.).

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the analyzed dimensions
Full size table

Results

The characteristics of the sample are displayed in detail in Table 1. Healthcare utilization: in average the participants reported consulting their PCP M(SD) = 4.44 (4.76) times. The reported visits ranged from 1 to 52. In average the patients rated the quality of the relationship with their PCP close to “totally appropriate” (M = 4.12 ± .69). Concerning avoidant and anxious attachment, both were rather on the lower end of the scale (see Table 2). The total effect of the mediation analyses was significant. However, the indirect effect was not and indicates only a trend result (see Table 3 and Figs. 1, 2). In general, the effect sizes of the mediation analyses were minimal. This outcome suggested that the patient-physician relationship (PDRQ-9) may not mediate the correlation between attachment-style and health care utilization (Avoidance: β = .014, p = .054 and Anxiety: β = .015, p = .051).

Table 3 Mediation analysis
Full size table

Discussion

The purpose of the study was to assess whether the patient-physician-relationship mediates the association between attachment-style and healthcare utilization in the context of primary care. In sum, our results demonstrated a significant and positive correlation between insecure attachment (i. e., avoidance, anxiety) and health care use. Furthermore, our data suggested that insecure attachment is related to a negative experience of the patient-physician-relationship. Nevertheless, in the present examination our hypothesis was not supported by our data: The minimal effect sizes implied that the patient-physician-relationship may not have a substantial impact on the link between attachment-style and health care use in the context of primary care. The revealed positive correlation between insecure attachment and health care utilization is not in line with past studies. The latter reporting that anxious-attached patients tend to over use health care, while avoidant-attached had the lowest health care utilization in primary care [26]. Even if the results of Ciechanowski et al. [26] align with outcomes in the context of general health care utilization [23], it is important to emphasize their relevance to a specific female sample. Weber et al. [56] found that females showed higher attachment anxiety, while males higher attachment avoidance. Furthermore, our findings pertaining the negative experienced patient-physician-relationship among insecure-attached individuals confirmed past findings describing similar negative interpersonal dynamics [37, 38, 40, 41]. Lastly, the result of our mediation analysis stands in contrast to previous research evidencing a significant mediating role of the patient-physician-relationship, regardless, between attachment and self-management [24, 43]. While self-management may reflect health care use, it encompasses a range of behaviors besides visiting the PCP, as examined in our study. Beyond that, the studied population by Brenk-Franz et al., [24] was older (50–85 yrs.) and had diabetes, which only affects approx. 7,2% of the German population [57], clearly differing from our representative sample. With regards to the mediation analysis, the limited effect of the patient-physician relationship on the attachment-style and healthcare utilization in primary care can be presumably explained by the characteristics of our sample. As opposed to past comparable studies, our participants scored low on both scales of insecure attachment and rated their relationship to their PCP as satisfactory. Since most of the comparable studies examined non-representative samples, it is possible that the mediating effect of the patient-physician relationship on attachment and health care use unfolds in the context of greater score-values in the examined variables (e. g., higher scores in insecure attachment and health care use). Indeed, patterns of emotional regulation and consequently health-related behavior can be perceived as the result of a hyper-activated attachment system, which is activated during vulnerable or threatening times [1, 13, 58]. Since 3–4 visits per year to the PCP (as reported by our participants) are below the threshold of frequent attendance [59], one may assume less perceive threat by our participants. Equally, factors such as physician-related variables (e.g., attachment-style, sympathy) might also affect patient’s behavior [60, 61] and thus, visits to their PCP. However, these factors were not part of the present study. Future studies, might benefit in including these variables that might have also impacted the quality of the relationship between the patient and their PCP and thus health care use. Taken together, our findings are preliminary and should be interpreted cautiously. One of the strengths of our study lies in the considerable size and representativeness of the study sample. On the other hand, the minimal effect sizes constrain the interpretation of our results. Even so, our findings are a useful reference for future studies. A further limiting factor pertains the data referent to the attachment-styles of individuals, who were not in a current relationship (or dating). Consequently, affecting how this status reflects on health care use. Further research might benefit from evaluating the attachment-style of the physician and also from investigating how the current relationship status of the patient might impact health care use. By elucidating the role of the patient-physician relationship, strategies that consider patients’ attachment styles can be tailored to foster more positive and supportive patient-physician relationships, leading to fruitful patient experiences and improved health outcomes [62].

In conclusion, our results suggested limited evidence regarding the mediating role of the PCP between attachment-style and health-care utilization. However, this research question remains highly relevant. In Germany, the PCP as the primary health provider plays a key role in managing further interventions for the patients and delivering effective treatment. Hence, improving the working relationship might optimize both, patient’s health and doctors’ resources by reducing burden on the healthcare system in the long run. Therefore, further studies are warranted to shed light in the revealed trends and be able to establish the implications of the observed outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from Prof. Katja Petrowski: kpetrows@uni-mainz.de on reasonable request.

References

  1. Bowlby J. A securebase: parent-childattachment and healthyhuman development. New York: Basic Books; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kelly EP, Tsilimigras DI, Hyer JM, Pawlik TM. Understanding the use of attachment theory applied to the patient-provider relationship in cancer care: recommendations for future research and clinical practice. Surg Oncol. 2019;31:101–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2019.10.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Thompson D, Ciechanowski PS. Attaching a new understanding to the patient-physician relationship in family practice. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16(3):219–26. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.16.3.219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Strauss B, Brenk-Franz K. The relevance of attachment theory in medical care. In: Hunter J, Maunder R, editors. Improving patient treatment with attachment theory: a guide for primary care practitioners and specialists. Springer International Publishing/Springer Nature; 2016. p. 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23300-0_4.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Bowlby J. The making and breaking of affectional bonds. I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. An expanded version of the fiftieth Maudsley lecture, delivered before the Royal College of psychiatrists, 19 November 1976. Br J Psychiatry. 1977;130:201–10. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.130.3.201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Schmidt S, Nachtigall C, Wuethrich-Martone O, Strauss B. Attachment and coping with chronic disease. J Psychosom Res. 2002;53(3):763–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00335-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Overall NC, Chang VT, Pietromonaco PR, Low RST, Henderson AME. Partners’ attachment insecurity and stress predict poorer relationship functioning during COVID-19 quarantines. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2022;13(1):285–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550621992973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Puig J, Englund MM, Simpson JA, Collins WA. Predicting adult physical illness from infant attachment: a prospective longitudinal study. Health Psychol : Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2013;32(4):409–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028889.

  9. Johnson W, Huelsnitz C, Carlson E, Roisman G, Englund M, Miller G, Simpson J. Childhood abuse and neglect and physical health at midlife: prospective, longitudinal evidence. Dev Psychopathol. 2017;29(5):1935–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095457941700150X.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. A behavioral systems perspective on the psychodynamics of attachment and sexuality. In: Diamond D, Blatt SJ, Lichtenberg JD, editors. Attachment and sexuality. The Analytic Press/Taylor & Francis Group; 2007. p. 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ainsworth MS, Bowlby J. An ethological approach to personality development. Am Psychol. 1991;46(4):333–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hazan C, Shaver P. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(3):511–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Pers Relat. 2005;12(2):149–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bartholomew K, Horowitz LM. Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991;61(2):226–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McWilliams LA. Relationships between adult attachment dimensions and patient physician relationship quality. J Relationsh Res. 2018;9:e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2018.13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ahrens KR, Ciechanowski P, Katon W. Associations between adult attachment style and health risk behaviors in an adult female primary care population. J Psychosom Res. 2012;72(5):364–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.02.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pietromonaco PR, Beck LA. Adult attachment and physical health. Curr Opin Psychol. 2019;25:115–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.04.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cooper ML, Shaver PR, Collins NL. Attachment styles, emotion regulation, and adjustment in adolescence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1998;74(5):1380–97. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.5.1380.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Feeney JA, Peterson C, Gallois C, Terry DJ. Attachment style as a piedictor of sexual attitudes and behavior in late adolescence. Psychol Health. 2000;14(6):1105–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870440008407370.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Huntsinger ET, Luecken LJ. Attachment relationships and health behavior: the mediational role of self-esteem. Psychol Health. 2004;19(4):515–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044042000196728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ciechanowski P, Russo J, Katon W, Von Korff M, Ludman E, Lin E, Simon G, Bush T. Influence of patient attachment style on self-care and outcomes in diabetes. Psychosom Med. 2004;66(5):720–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000138125.59122.23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Brenk-Franz K, Strauss B, Tiesler F, Fleischhauer C, Ciechanowski P, Schneider N, Gensichen J. The Influence of Adult Attachment on Patient Self-Management in Primary Care--The Need for a Personalized Approach and Patient-Centred Care. PLoS One. 2015;10(9):e0136723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0136723.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jimenez X. Attachment in medical care: a review of the interpersonal model in chronic disease management. Chronic Illn. 2016;13(1) https://doi.org/10.1177/174239531665345.

  24. Brenk-Franz K, Strauss B, Tiesler F, Fleischhauer C, Schneider N, Gensichen J. Patient-provider relationship as mediator between adult attachment and self-management in primary care patients with multiple chronic conditions. Psychosom Res. 2017;97:131–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000138125.59122.23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Feeney JA, Ryan SM. Attachment style and affect regulation: relationships with health behavior and family experiences of illness in a student sample. Health Psychol: Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 1994;13(4):334–45. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.13.4.334.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Ciechanowski PS, Walker EA, Katon WJ, Russo JE. Attachment theory: a model for health care utilization and somatization. Psychosom Med. 2002;64(4):660–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000021948.90613.76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Adler HM. The Sociophysiology of caring in the doctor-patient relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17:883–90. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.10640.x.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Miller RC. The somatically preoccupied patient in primary care: use of attachment theory to strengthen physician-patient relationships. Osteopathic Med Prim Care. 2008;2(1):1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ridd M, Shaw A, Lewis G, Salisbury C. The patient–doctor relationship: a synthesis of the qualitative literature on patients’ perspectives. Br J Gen Pract. 2009;59(561):e116–33. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp09X420248.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Chipidza FE, Wallwork RS, Stern TA. Impact of the Docotr-patient relationship. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2015;17(5) https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.15f01840.

  31. Dinkel A, Schneider A, Schmutzer G, Brähler E, Häuser W. Family physician-patient relationship and frequent attendance of primary and specialist health care: results from a German population-based cohort study. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1213–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.02.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heje HN, Vedsted P, Sokolowski I, Olesen F. Patient characteristics associated with differences in patients’ evaluation of their general practitioner. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:178. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-178.

  33. Potiriadis M, Chondros P, Gilchrist G, Hegarty K, Blashki G, Gunn JM. How do Australian patients rate their general practitioner? A descriptive study using the general practice assessment questionnaire. Med J Aust. 2008;189:215–9. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2008.tb01986.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kersnik J, Scvab I, Vegnuti M. Frequent attenders in general practice: quality of life, patient satisfaction, use of medical services and GP characteristics. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2001;19(3):174–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fenton JJ, Jerant AF, Bertakis KD, Franks P. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(5):405–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wilkinson SR. Coping and complaining: attachment and the language of disease. Routledge; 2004. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203420881.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Hunter J, Maunder R. Advanced concepts in attachment theory and their application to health care. In: In improving patient treatment with attachment theory: a guide for primary care practitioners and specialists. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016. p. 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23300-0_3.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Zaporowska-Stachowiak I, Stachowiakm K, Stachnik K. Two is a perfect number: patient–doctor relationship and patient attachment style in palliative care. J Health Psychol. 2019;24(5):549–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105317721307.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Hillen MA, de Haes HC, van Tienhoven G, et al. All eyes on the patient: the influence of oncologists’ nonverbal communication on breast cancer patients’ trust. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;153(1):161–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Ciechanowski P, Russo J, Katon W, Simon G, Ludman E, Von Korff M, Lin E. Where is the patient? The association of psychosocial factors and missed primary care appointments in patients with diabetes. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2006;28(1):9–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Sullivan MD, Ciechanowski PS, Russo JE, Soine LA, Jordan-Keith K, Ting HH, Caldwell JH. Understanding why patients delay seeking care for acute coronary syndromes. Circ: Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2009;2(3):148–54. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.108.825471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gerretsen P, Myers J. The physician: a secure base. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(32):5294–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.17.5588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Naing MZ, Mohanan SA. Doctor patient relationship as a mediator between attachment dimensions and self-management in chronic patients, Yangon, Myanmar Scholar. Hum Sci. 2021;13(2):125–125.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ehrenthal JC, Zimmermann J, Brenk-Franz K, Dinger U, Schauenburg H, Brähler E, Strauß B. Evaluation of a short version of the experiences in close relationships-revised questionnaire (ECR-RD8): results from a representative German sample. BMC Psychol. 2021;9(1):140. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-021-00637-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Van Oppen P, Van Marwijk HW, De Beurs E, Van Dyck R. A patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in primary care: development and psychometric evaluation. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2004;26(2):115–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2003.08.010.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Zenger M, Schaefert R, van der Feltz-Cornelis C, Brähler E, Häuser W. Validation of the patient-doctor-relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-9) in a representative cross-sectional German population survey. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91964. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0091964.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Horvath A, Gaston L, Luborsky L. The therapeutic alliance and its measures. In: Miller NE, Luborsky L, Barber JP, Docherty JP, editors. Psychodynamic treatment research: a handbook for clinical practice. Basic Books; 1993. p. 247–73.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mingote Adán J, Moreno Jiménez B, Rodríguez Carvajal R, Gálvez Herrer M, Ruiz López P. Psychometric validation of the Spanish version of the patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ). Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2009;37(2):94–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Mergen H, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Karoglu N, Mergen BE, Ongel K. Validity of the Turkish patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (PDRQ-Turkish) in comparison with the Europep instrument in a family medicine center. HealthMed. 2012;6(5):1763–70.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Porcelli P, Taylor GJ. Alexithymia and physical illness: a psychosomatic approach. Alexithymia. Advances in research, theory, and clinical practice; 2018. p. 105–26.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  51. Bellach B, Knopf H, Thefeld W. Der Bundes-Gesundheitssurvey 1997/98. Gesundheitswesen. 1998;60:59–68.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Thode N, Bergmann E, Kamtsiuris P, Kurth BM. Predictors for ambulatory medical care utilization in Germany. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforsch Gesundheitsschutz. 2005;48:296–306.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020. URL https://www.R-project.org/.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ballen CJ, Salehi S. Mediation analysis in discipline-based education research using structural equation modeling: beyond “what works” to understand how it works, and for whom. J Microbiol Biol Edu. 2021;22(2):e00108–21. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00108-21.

  56. Weber R, Eggenberger L, Stosch C, Walther A. Gender differences in attachment anxiety and avoidance and their association with psychotherapy use-examining students from a German University. Behav Sci (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;12(7):204. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12070204.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. RKI. Health monitoring – chronic disease – diabetes mellitus. 2016. URL https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Health_Monitoring/Main_Topics/Chronic_Disease/Diabetes/diabetes_node.html.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Bernman WH, Marcus L, Berman ER. Attachment in marital relations. In: Sperling MB, Berman WH, editors. Attachment in adults: theory, assessment and treatment. New York: Guilford Press; 1994. p. 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Shukla DM, Faber EB, Sick B. Defining and characterizing frequent attenders, Systematic Literature Review and Recommendations. J Patient-Centered Res Rev. 2020;7(3):255–64. https://doi.org/10.17294/2330-0698.1747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mimura C, Norman IJ. The relationship between healthcare workers' attachment styles and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care : J Int Soc Qual Health Care. 2018;30(5):332–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzy034.

  61. Salmon P, Wissow L, Carroll J, Ring A, Humphris GM, Davies JC, Dowrick CF. Doctors' attachment style and their inclination to propose somatic interventions for medically unexplained symptoms. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2008;30(2):104–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2007.12.002.

  62. Cox ED, Smith MA, Brown RL, Fitzpatrick MA. Assessment of the physician-caregiver relationship scaled (PCRS). Patient Educ. 2008;70(1):69–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

N/A.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Petrowski, K, and Brähler, Elmar contributed equally to the manuscript; shared authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, Johannes-Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    I. Schmalbach & K. Petrowski

  2. Psychology of Rehabilitation, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg and Stendal, Magdeburg, Germany

    G. H. Franke

  3. Innere Medizin I, Klinikum Saarbrücken gGmbH, Winterberg 1, 66119, Saarbrücken, Germany

    W. Häuser

  4. Institut für Psychosoziale Medizin und Psychotherapie, Klinikum der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany

    B. Strauss

  5. Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus, Department of General Practice/MK3, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    K. Petrowski

  6. Integrated Research and Treatment Center (IFB) Adiposity Diseases – Behavioral Medicine, Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany

    Elmar Brähler

  7. University Medical Centre, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany

    Elmar Brähler

Authors
  1. I. Schmalbach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. G. H. Franke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Häuser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. Strauss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Petrowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Elmar Brähler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EB, KP collected data, IS conducted analyses and wrote the paper. GHF contributed to drafting the manuscript. KP, WH, BS supervised data collection and contributed to the manuscript. All authors provided valuable feedback on the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Petrowski.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants volunteered and received a data protection declaration in agreement with the Helsinki Declaration. They gave both, written and verbal, informed consent. The study and procedure, including the consent procedure, were approved by the institutional ethics review board of the University of Leipzig (Ethics Nr. 050/13–11032013). Furthermore, the study adhered to the guidelines of the ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice.

Consent for publication

N/A.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schmalbach, I., Franke, G.H., Häuser, W. et al. Attachment styles and healthcare utilization: exploring the role of the patient-doctor relationship. BMC Health Serv Res 24, 63 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10484-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-10484-w

Keywords

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

Contact us