ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2020
Measuring the quality of patient-physician communication.
Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- How well do we write for patients? Longitudinal analysis of the readability and complexity of 4.6 million ophthalmic clinical letters.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
- Barriers and Facilitators to Physician-Patient Communication in Chinese Tertiary Hospitals From the Perspectives of Hospital-Based Physicians and Patient Relations Coordinators: Qualitative Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2026Article
- Machine Learning-Based Classification of ICU-Acquired Neuromuscular Weakness: A Comparative Study in Survivors of Critical Illness.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Empowering health: exploring the vital role of facilitator organisations in supporting chronic disease patients in Assam, India.Research in health services & regions · 2024Article
- Quality communication can improve patient-centred health outcomes among older patients: a rapid review.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Auto Response Generation in Online Medical Chat Services.Journal of healthcare informatics research · 2022Article
- Year 2020 (with COVID): Observation of Scientific Literature on Clinical Natural Language Processing.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2021Review
- Evaluating online doctor-patient communication quality and its effects: Text analysis approach.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Patient-physician communication is an often overlooked yet a very important aspect of providing medical care. Positive patient-physician quality of communication within discourse has an influence on various aspects of a consultation such as a patient's treatment adherence to prescribed medical regimen and their medical care outcome. As few reference standards exist for exploring semantics within the patient-physician setting and its effects on personalized healthcare, this paper presents a study exploring three methods to capture, model and evaluate patient-physician communication among three distinct data-sources. We introduce, compare and contrast these methods for capturing and modeling patient-physician communication quality using relatedness between discourse content within a given consultation. Results are shown for all three data-sources and communication quality scores among physicians recorded. We found our models demonstrate the ability to capture positive communication quality between both participants within a consultation. We also evaluate these findings against self-reported questionnaires highlighting various aspects of the consultation and rank communication quality among seventeen physicians who consulted amid one-hundred and thirty-two patients.
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.