Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24404300›Full record

ReviewJournal of graduate medical education2013

"Best practice" for patient-centered communication: a narrative review.

Ann King, Ruth B Hoppe

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of graduate medical education, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 224 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
224citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

224 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

164 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ann King
Ruth B Hoppe

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunicating with patients has long been identified as an important physician competency. More recently, there is a growing consensus regarding the components that define physician-patient communication. There continues to be emphasis on both the need to teach and to assess the communication skills of physicians.

objectiveThis narrative review aims to summarize the work that has been conducted in physician-patient communication that supports the efficacy of good communications skills. This work may also help to define the physician-patient communication skills that need to be taught and assessed.

resultsA review of the literature shows it contains impressive evidence supporting positive associations between physician communication behaviors and positive patient outcomes, such as patient recall, patient understanding, and patient adherence to therapy. There is a consensus about what constitutes "best practice" for physician communication in medical encounters: (1) fostering the relationship, (2) gathering information, (3) providing information, (4) making decisions, (5) responding to emotions, and (6) enabling disease- and treatment-related behavior.

conclusionsEvidence supports the importance of communication skills as a dimension of physician competence. Effort to enhance teaching of communication skills to medical trainees likely will require significant changes in instruction at undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as changes in assessing the developing communication skills of physicians. An added critical dimension is faculty understanding of the importance of communication skills, and their commitment to helping trainees develop those skills.

Identifiers

PMID24404300
PMCPMC3771166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.