Observational studyAndrology2022
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of doctor-patient interactions during andrological consultations.
Observational study in Andrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender-affirming hormone treatment: friend or foe? Long-term follow-up of 755 transgender people.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2024Observational
- Review
- Article
- Qualitative and quantitative analysis of doctor-patient interactions during andrological consultations.Andrology · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough a trustworthy connection between doctor and patient is crucial in clinical practice, it could be hindered by different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Moreover, an effective doctor-patient interaction could be even more challenging in andrological fields, in which psychological and social components are predominant.
aimTo analyse the doctor-patient relationship in the andrological field, applying both qualitative and quantitative analyses.
methodsmonocentric, cross-sectional, observational study was performed between May and December 2018. During the study, all patients aged >18 years attending the Modena Andrology Unit for couple infertility or erectile dysfunction were enrolled and the doctor-patients interaction recorded. Patients were divided into two groups depending on their medical seeking and were further divided between native and non-native speakers of Italian. All patients underwent a routine andrological examination. Every first medical consultation was audio-recorded and transcribed using "ELAN" software for socio-linguistic analysis. Transcriptions underwent qualitative analysis through conversation analysis. Then, quantitative analyses were performed, and interaction parameters underwent correlation analyses.
resultsTwenty-five patients were enrolled. The analysis of the andrological interview allowed to recognise five consecutive phases, following a semi-standardized pattern. Patients without linguistic barriers and with infertility problems showed more autonomous contribution during the consultation. No difference arose in the sexual dysfunctions group. Doctor's explanations were frequent, but when linguistic barrier was present or Italian patients seemed less talkative, explanations were shorter, and doctors tried to use other conversational mechanisms to promote understanding. Patient's variables were significantly lower compared to the doctor, considering the number of turns (p = 0.025) and their minimum (p = 0.032), maximum (p < 0.001), and average durations (p < 0.001). Only patient's latency was significantly higher than the doctor's (p = 0.001).
conclusionThis is the first attempt to analyse the doctor-patient relationship in andrology using authentic audio-recorded consultations. The results confirmed that a patient-centred communication must be applied also in andrological consultations. However, the topics discussed may require more "medical formulation" to be acceptable to the participants in this context.
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.