ArticlePloS one2020
Doctor-patient care relationship in genetic cardiomyopathies: An exploratory study on clinical consultations.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Editorial: New frameworks for chronic diseases treatment: research, prevention, intervention.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe present study aims to explore the setting of consultation and communication between physicians and patients affected by genetic cardiomyopathies, investigating how the two parts of the therapeutic relationship participate and share information. METHODS AND
results45 adult patients affected by various cardiomyopathies took part in a prospective case study while attending consultations at a cardiologic outpatient clinic constituting an Italian referral centre for cardiomyopathies. A researcher observed the consultations, which were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were coded and an analysis of setting, type of communication implemented and participation of doctors and patients in terms of word-count and type of questions/answers was carried out. Overall word-count was significantly higher for physicians than for patients (t(44) = 9,506; p<0.001). Doctors were prone to ask closed questions (t(44) = -11,90; p<0.001) while patients preferred open answers (t(44) = 5.58; p<0.001), enriched with subjective issues related to their illness experience. Partial correlation highlights a significant positive relation between doctors' closed question and patients' open answers (r = .838; p<0.001).
conclusionsFindings emphasize patients' need for adequate time and space to share their subjective illness experience with the physician, within an approach informed by the insights and recommendations of Narrative Medicine. These findings are instrumental to improving the specific clinical setting for individuals with genetic cardiomyopathies.
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.