Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2015
Impact of Scientific Versus Emotional Wording of Patient Questions on Doctor-Patient Communication in an Internet Forum: A Randomized Controlled Experiment with Medical Students.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Language Use in Conversational Agent-Based Health Communication: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions for improving medical students' interpersonal communication in medical consultations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- What Are We Looking for in Computer-Based Learning Interventions in Medical Education? A Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2016Pooled it
- Good reasons for bad behavior: a randomized controlled experiment on the impact of narrative reading and writing on empathic concern, perspective-taking, and attitude.Frontiers in public health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- How Experts' Use of Medical Technical Jargon in Different Types of Online Health Forums Affects Perceived Information Credibility: Randomized Experiment With Laypersons.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Trial
- The impact of physicians' communication styles on evaluation of physicians and information processing: A randomized study with simulated video consultations on contraception with an intrauterine device.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Trial
- Just Semantics? How Diagnostic Criteria Influence Physician-Patient Narratives in Alzheimer's Disease.Neuro-degenerative diseases · 2026Article
- Training Scientific Communication Skills on Medical Imaging within the Virtual World Second Life: Perception of Biomedical Engineering Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Article
- How to communicate with patients in written asynchronous online conversations: an intervention study with undergraduate medical students in a cross-over design.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- How do patients and physicians communicate about hereditary angioedema in the United States?PloS one · 2021Article
- Rebuild doctor-patient trust in medical service delivery in China.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- #Antivaccination on Instagram: A Computational Analysis of Hashtag Activism through Photos and Public Responses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Effects of Positive Language and Profession on Trustworthiness and Credibility in Online Health Advice: Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Development of domain-specific epistemological beliefs of physiotherapists: a longitudinal study.BMC medical education · 2019Article
- Association of Online Learning Behavior and Learning Outcomes for Medical Students: Large-Scale Usage Data Analysis.JMIR medical education · 2019Article
- Influence of Enthusiastic Language on the Credibility of Health Information and the Trustworthiness of Science Communicators: Insights From a Between-Subject Web-Based Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2019Article
- Investigating the Role of Communication for Information Seekers' Trust-Related Evaluations of Health Videos on the Web: Content Analysis, Survey Data, and Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
- The Effect of Screen-to-Screen Versus Face-to-Face Consultation on Doctor-Patient Communication: An Experimental Study with Simulated Patients.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical expert forums on the Internet play an increasing role in patient counseling. Therefore, it is important to understand how doctor-patient communication is influenced in such forums both by features of the patients or advice seekers, as expressed in their forum queries, and by characteristics of the medical experts involved.
objectiveIn this experimental study, we aimed to examine in what way (1) the particular wording of patient queries and (2) medical experts' therapeutic health concepts (for example, beliefs around adhering to a distinctly scientific understanding of diagnosis and treatment and a clear focus on evidence-based medicine) impact communication behavior of the medical experts in an Internet forum.
methodsAdvanced medical students (in their ninth semester of medical training) were recruited as participants. Participation in the online forum was part of a communication training embedded in a gynecology course. We first measured their biomedical therapeutic health concept (hereinafter called "biomedical concept"). Then they participated in an online forum where they answered fictitious patient queries about mammography screening that either included scientific or emotional wording in a between-group design. We analyzed participants' replies with regard to the following dimensions: their use of scientific or emotional wording, the amount of communicated information, and their attempt to build a positive doctor-patient relationship.
resultsThis study was carried out with 117 medical students (73 women, 41 men, 3 did not indicate their sex). We found evidence that both the wording of patient queries and the participants' biomedical concept influenced participants' response behavior. They answered emotional patient queries in a more emotional way (mean 0.92, SD 1.02) than scientific patient queries (mean 0.26, SD 0.55; t74=3.48, P<.001, d=0.81). We also found a significant interaction effect between participants' use of scientific or emotional wording and type of patient query (F2,74=10.29, P<.01, partial η(2)=0.12) indicating that participants used scientific wording independently of the type of patient query, whereas they used emotional wording particularly when replying to emotional patient queries. In addition, the more pronounced the medical experts' biomedical concept was, the more scientifically (adjusted β=.20; F1,75=2.95, P=.045) and the less emotionally (adjusted β=-.22; F1,74=3.66, P=.03) they replied to patient queries. Finally, we found that participants' biomedical concept predicted their engagement in relationship building (adjusted β=-.26): The more pronounced their biomedical concept was, the less they attempted to build a positive doctor-patient relationship (F1,74=5.39, P=.02).
conclusionsCommunication training for medical experts could aim to address this issue of recognizing patients' communication styles and needs in certain situations in order to teach medical experts how to take those aspects adequately into account. In addition, communication training should also make medical experts aware of their individual therapeutic health concepts and the consequential implications in communication situations.
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.