English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: To know the frequency and characteristics of the types of companions of the patients, classified as “collaborators” and “non-collaborators” from the point of view of the doctor, and to compare them to assess whether there are relevant variables associated to take into account and for preventing difficulties in the clinical interview. Material and methods: An observational and analytical study, which included patients of both sexes over 14 years. For each patient and companion the following variables were collected, among others: type of companion classified as “collaborator” and “non-collaborator”, age, sex, chronic disease, taking medication, sick leave of the patient, the problems in the family context, social-occupancy class, the companion relationship with the patient, and the social availability of companion in relation to the patient. Results: 45% of companions of the patients were “collaborators” and 55% were “non-collaborators”. In the comparison between companions “collaborators” and companions “non-collaborators”, the results were only statistically significant, and for the companions “non-collaborators”, for more family problems and fewer workers, and students, and more housewives and unemployed. In the comparison between patients with companions “collaborators” and patients with companions “non-collaborators”, were found a statistically significant difference, for patients with companions “noncollaborators” for the presence of more family problems. Conclusions: We found a slight predominance of the companions “non-collaborators”, who are housewives or unemployed preferably, and with family problems; on the other hand, the patients who are accompanied for these companions also present family problems. If the family doctor knows the type of companion could strengthen the relationship in the case of companion “collaborator” and avoid interference in the course of the clinical interview in the case of a companion “non-collaborator”.

Types of Companion of the Patient in Family Medicine