ArticleHealth communication2017
Family Engagement in Pediatric Sickle Cell Disease Visits.
Article in Health communication, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parent and adolescent perspectives on decision-making involvement: A qualitative comparison in sickle cell and diabetes clinics.Patient education and counseling · 2026Article
- Caregiver and provider perspectives on developmental services for children with sickle cell disease: a mixed methods analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Family-centered communication in pediatric sickle cell disease.Pediatric blood & cancer · 2022Article
- Adolescent, Parent, and Clinician Perspectives on Increasing Adolescent Involvement in Decision-Making During Clinic Visits.Journal of pediatric health care : official publication of National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates & PractitionersArticle
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
Adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) report problems in relationship building and information exchange during clinic visits. To explore the origin of these communication challenges, we compare communication in pediatric SCD, diabetes, and asthma visits. We collected visit videos and parent surveys from 78 children ages 9-16 years with SCD, asthma, or diabetes. Coders assessed child, parent, and physician utterances reflecting relationship building, information giving, and information gathering. Associations of engagement with type of chronic disease visit were performed with negative binomial regression. Compared to SCD visits, children in diabetes visits spoke 53% more relationship-building utterances (p < .05) and physicians in asthma visits spoke 48% fewer relationship building utterances to the child (p < .01). In diabetes visits, physicians gave almost twice as much information to children and gave 48% less information to parents (both p < .01) compared to SCD visits. Compared to SCD visits, physicians spoke fewer information-gathering utterances to parents in diabetes and asthma visits (85% and 72% respectively, both p < .001). SCD visits reflect less engagement of the children and greater physician effort to gather information from parents. These differences highlight opportunities to enhance engagement as a mechanism for ultimately improving SCD care.
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.