ArticleClinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2011
Communication patterns for the most serious poison center calls.
Article in Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2011. 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.
- High call volume at poison control centers: identification and implications for communication.Clinical toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
CONTEXT. The communication demands faced by specialists in poison information (SPI) are unique in the health-care context. OBJECTIVES. (1) To describe SPI communication patterns for the highest risk poison exposure calls using cluster analysis, and (2) to describe variation in communication patterns or clusters. METHODS. A sample of 1 year of poison exposure calls to a regional poison control center with SPIs' perceived severity rating of major or moderate perceived was collected. Digital voice recordings were linked with medical records and were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. Descriptive analyses were applied, and cluster-analytic techniques were used to assess variation in call communication and factors associated with that variation. RESULTS. Cases were described, and four communication styles were identified. The informational cluster represents calls with relatively high levels of SPI clinical information and caller questions. The Facilitative cluster represents calls with a pattern of relatively high SPI questions and caller information provision. The Planning cluster represents calls with relatively high levels of SPI relationship talk. The Emotional cluster represents calls with relatively high caller and SPI emotion. Further analyses revealed relationships between call characteristics, SPI identity, and cluster membership. CONCLUSION. This study provides a beginning step to understanding SPI communication behaviors. Our results suggest that SPIs are able to use a range of communication strategies that often involve not only information but also emotional responsiveness and rapport building. Findings also point to the opportunity for future communication training for SPIs to meet the needs of the heterogeneous caller population.
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.