ArticleMultidisciplinary respiratory medicine2019
Use of narrative medicine to identify key factors for effective doctor-patient relationships in severe asthma.
Article in Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shared decision making - a review of its evaluation, efficacy, and applicability in asthma.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Review
- Narrative Medicine: theory, clinical practice and education - a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- The role of patients' stories in medicine: a systematic scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Experiences in elderly people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in relation to the use of long-term home oxygen therapy: a qualitative study about feelings attributed to therapy.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
- Patients and doctors group meetings: an innovative way to explore severe asthma backstage.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2022Article
- Perspectives on decisions for treatment and care in severe asthma.The World Allergy Organization journal · 2021Review
- Narrative medicine in pediatric medical education and patient care: A scoping review.Tzu chi medical journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this project the authors use a narrative medicine (NM) approach to assess the promotion of trust in the relationship between physicians and their asthma patients.
methodsFollowing a NM educational course for physicians, a research was carried out in which at least 5 written narratives (parallel charts) for each participating physician were collected and qualitatively analysed according to Bury's classification and the Grounded Theory.
resultsThe results of this study were of speculative and clinical interest. In particular, 66 participants wrote 314 narratives (246 on adult and 68 on paediatric patients). As a result of applying the NM approach, when the relationships remained problematic, many physicians wrote with a moral style about their adult (67%), and paediatric patients (33%) - especially in cases of asthmatic children's or adolescents' overprotective or absent families (40%) -. On the contrary, physicians who were able to listen to their patients with empathy (35%) made more shared decisions with patients, even with those they initially had a bad relationship. The used words of welcome, interest and acceptance were promoting patients' trust that lead to restoring their activities in 45% of cases, according to physicians self-reporting.
conclusionsThese approaches of NM are useful in daily clinical practice, with the goal of improving the quality of life (QOL) of patients with severe asthma, even in cases in which the doctor-patient relationship isn't initially good.
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.