ArticleAtencion primaria2009
[Influence of the patient's companion on the discussion and length of the clinical interview in primary health care].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Communication with patients and the duration of family medicine consultations.Atencion primaria · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo find out the percentage of patients who come accompanied to their medical appointments, their companion's profile and his/her influence on the discussion and the length of the clinical interview in Primary Health Care.
designDescriptive observational study.
settingAdoratrices and La Orden Healthcare Centers. Health District: Huelva-Coast.
participantsNon-probabilistic randomized sample of 390 interviews in November 2007. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Data was collected by 4 external observers on: the companion and his/her characteristics, length of clinical interview, the interview strategies employed, success and differences when with a companion.
resultsThe companion was present in 30.5% of the clinical interviews (95% CI, 25.9%-35.3%). The typical companion is female (61.3%), 52 years old, wife and co-worker. Strategies were used in 6.7% of interviews (95% CI, 2.8%-15.6%), the most frequent being signalling. The difference as regards initial exposure without interruption was 2s without and with a companion (p=0.276). The interview finished with a difference of 46 s without companion and with companion (p=0.098). As regards the length of the clinical interview, without discussion it was 7 min long and with discussion 8 min and 38 s (p=0.034). There was discussion in 16.4% of the interviews (95% CI, 12.9%-20.5%) and there was agreement in 88.9% (95% CI, 78.4%-95.4%). The most frequent strategy was that of redirecting objectives.
conclusionsApproximately one third of the patients came accompanied. The most frequent profile was the co-worker. The companion does not have an effect on the length of the interview. Length increases when there is discussion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.