ReviewIrish journal of medical science2018
Assessment of patient concerns: a review.
Review in Irish journal of medical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of applying a patient safety taxonomy to patient and clinician-reported incident reports during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Prevalence and burden of diabetes mellitus-related symptoms in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A cross-sectional study.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2023Article
- Patient coaching: What do patients want? A mixed methods study in waiting rooms of outpatient clinics.PloS one · 2022Article
- Clinico-Psychosocial Factors Predicting Hepatocellular Carcinoma Related Knowledge Among Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2020Article
- The Patient's Narrative Agenda as an assessment tool: the story of Robert, suffering from osteosarcoma.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-centred communication is the mainstay of the medical consultation. It includes the assessment of patient concerns and is important in building the doctor-patient therapeutic relationship. Our aim was to perform a literature review to identify relevance of patient concern assessment, to identify what concerns are encountered in various clinical settings and to explore the different methodologies used to obtain them.
methodsA narrative review was performed.
resultsAddressing patient concerns is associated with increased patient satisfaction. Unvoiced concerns are associated with unresolved health issues and poor doctor-patient relationships. Different specialities have focused on different aspects of concern assessment. Patient concern assessment studies are mostly qualitative in nature. Not all qualitative methods give similar results. Interviews are more reliable sources of information than questionnaires as no one questionnaire captures all patient concerns. The location where interviews take place is also relevant.
conclusionsAssessing patient concerns is associated with positive outcomes. Patient concerns are handled differently by different clinical specialties. Various methodologies have been used for concern assessment. Interviews and questionnaires can often yield different results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29368281What 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.