ArticlePatient education and counseling2022
A questionnaire-based study on quality and adequacy of clinical communication between physician and family members of admitted Covid-19 patients.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of digital communication tools on patients, family members and health care professionals in adult ICUs: a mixed-methods systematic review.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- Psychometric validation of the Chinese versions of the quality of communication questionnaires for cancer patients and their family caregivers.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- Impact of pandemic mobility restrictions on kidney transplant patients' experience: lessons on quality of care.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- Two years with COVID-19: New - and old - challenges for health communication research.Patient education and counseling · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess adequacy of present means of clinical communication between physicians and (Covid-19) patients' family members, to analyse their perspectives and recommend felicitous practices for virtual conversation during ongoing pandemic.
methodsCross-sectional questionnaire-based (20 questions) anonymous online survey was conducted including patient's relatives (Group-1) and treating physicians (Group-2), through Google Forms.
resultsResponse Rate was 82.5%. Group-1 and Group-2 included 155 and 204 respondents respectively. Group-1 preferred update by resident doctors (39%), twice a day (41.9%), daily case-summaries (80%) and hand-written document/electronic messages (53%,31%) as consent. Whereas Group-2 favored update by senior consultants (63%), daily one appraisal (55.9%) and scanned copies of hand written consent (81%) before high-risk procedures. The groups broadly agreed on the desired duration for a fruitful discussion (5-10 min) and designating one responsible person from the family for daily appraisal.
conclusionUse of modern techniques/technologies of communication (voice/video calls, texts) during the ongoing pandemic is acceptable to majority. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Study proposes a senior physician should communicate to a designated responsible family member at-least once a day for stable and twice a day for critical covid patients (more if patient's health condition changes), either by voice or video calls for 5-10 min.
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.