Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36071431›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

The influence factors of medical disputes in Shanghai and implications - from the perspective of doctor, patient and disease.

Yu Liu, Pei Wang, Yonghai Bai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Effect of situational simulation teaching combined with the AIDET framework on communication skills training for oncology residents.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Research on the impact of hospital organizational behavior on physicians'patient-centered care.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yu LiuDepartment of Psychology, Education College, Shanghai Normal University, Shanghai, 200234, China.
Pei WangSchool of Teacher Education, Honghe University, Mengzi, 661199, China. wangpei1970@163.com.
Yonghai BaiDepartment of Medical Psychology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200003, China. baiyonghai179@126.com.
Honghe University · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNShanghai Normal University · CN

Funding

Major Bidding Project of National Social Science Fund of China:Psychological mechanism and promotion System construction of harmonious doctor-patient relationship 17ZDA327
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the causes and factors behind medical disputes that occurred across eight hospitals in Shanghai over a three-year period (January 2018 to December 2020), thus providing targeted suggestions for amelioration.

methodsStratified sampling was employed to collect 561 cases in which medical disputes occurred at two tertiary hospitals, two secondary hospitals, and four primary hospitals in Shanghai. The causes were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while the factors affecting the dispute level (i.e., 1 through 4, with 1 being most severe) were analyzed via one-way ANOVA and logistic regression analyses. 

resultsDoctors and patients variously contributed to the medical disputes; 86.1% were related to doctors, while 13.9% were related to patients. For doctors, there are seventeen factors that influenced medical disputes. In particular, the insufficient communication (28.82%) is the most prominent factor in the doctors' factors. For patients, there are seven factors that influenced medical disputes. In particular, the misunderstanding of medical behavior (43.48%) is the most prominent factor in the patients' factors. Of all investigated medical disputes, 406 were level 4 (78%), 95 were level 3 (18%), and 19 were level 2 (4%); there were no level 1 disputes. The reasons for different level placements included the disease classification, treatment effect, diagnosis and treatment regulation violations by doctors, and low technical levels.

conclusionsIn addition to strengthening training about clinical and communication skills, the hospitals should establish quality control mechanisms for case records and construct rapid, standardized referral mechanisms. The doctors should attach great importance to the quality and urgency of treatment given to critically ill patients, who must be informed about their prognoses in a timely manner to avoid medical disputes and physical deterioration. The patients should actively cooperate with their doctors in the treatment process, moderate any unrealistic expectations that patients may have about the outcomes. During the COVID-19 pandemic particularly, doctors and patients should strengthen empathy and mutual trust more, then defeat disease together.

Indexed as

COVID-19Dissent and DisputesChinaHumansPandemicsTertiary Care CentersDispute levelFactor of diseaseFactor of doctorFactor of patientMedical dispute

Identifiers

PMID36071431
PMCPMC9449943
OpenAlexW4294991143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.