Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36620286›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2022

More exposure to medical injury news, better doctor-patient communication, but less doctors' professional identity: A moderated chain mediation model.

Qiwei Li, Jie Zhou, Lei Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Qiwei LiKey Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Jie ZhouKey Laboratory of Behavioral Science, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.
Lei ChenDepartment of Ultrasound, Peking University First Hospital, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: In recent years, news of medical malignant injury events has become common in China. However, it is unclear how exposure to this news affects medical staff. Methods: The present study collected data from a sample of 311 medical staff in China. It explored the effect of exposure to such news on medical staff's communication and willingness to let their children be doctors, which was an attitude that reflects their professional identity well. In addition, this study also examined the mediating roles of outgroup attribution and anxiety, and the moderating role of social support. Results: The results showed that exposure to news of medical injury could positively and directly predict the quality of doctor-patient communication, but negatively and indirectly predict medical staff's willingness to let their children become doctors. These effects existed through the mediating role of anxiety and the chain mediating role of both outgroup attribution and anxiety. In addition, social support could mitigate the negative correlation between news exposure and outgroup attribution. Conclusions: These results suggest that news of medical malignant injury events may incentivize medical staff to improve the quality of communication in the short term, but it is not conducive to medical staff's long-term mental health. That is, exposure to news of medical injury is likely to lead to a negative influence on their professional identity, although social support can alleviate this negative influence.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansChildCommunicationHumansMedical StaffSocial Supportanxietydoctor-patient communicationnews exposureoutgroup attributionsocial support

Identifiers

PMID36620286
PMCPMC9814165

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.