Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37244131›Full record

ArticlePatient education and counseling2023

Empathic communication between clinicians, patients, and care partners in palliative care encounters.

Emily L Mroz, Meghan McDarby, Jean S Kutner, Robert M Arnold, Carma L Bylund, Kathryn I Pollak

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient education and counseling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Emily L MrozSection of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: Emily.mroz@yale.edu.
Meghan McDarbyDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, United States.
Jean S KutnerDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, United States.
Robert M ArnoldDivision of General Internal Medicine, Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh, United States.
Carma L BylundDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida College of Medicine, United States.
Kathryn I PollakCancer Prevention and Control, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University, United States; Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, United States.
Duke University · USFlorida College · USMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Pittsburgh · USYale University · US

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Psychosocial Palliative & Community Research in CancerT32CA009461 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI JENNIFER L HAY, Jamie S. Ostroff · 1985 to 2026
$10.1M
Yale Training Program in Geriatric Clinical Epidemiology and Aging-Related ResearchT32AG019134 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Terri R. Fried · 2001 to 2026
$7.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748NCI NIH HHS T32 CA009461NIA NIH HHS T32 AG019134
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivePalliative care encounters often involve empathic opportunities conveyed by patients and their care partners. In this secondary analysis, we examined empathic opportunities and clinician responses with attention to how presence of multiple care partners and clinicians shapes empathic communication.

methodsWe used the Empathic Communication Coding System (ECCS) to characterize emotion-focused, challenge-focused, and progress-focused empathic opportunities and responses in 71 audio-recorded palliative care encounters in the US.

resultsPatients expressed more emotion-focused empathic opportunities than did care partners; care partners expressed more challenge-focused empathic opportunities than did patients. Care partners initiated empathic opportunities more frequently when more care partners were present, though they expressed fewer as the number of clinicians increased. When more care partners and more clinicians were present, clinicians had fewer low-empathy responses.

conclusionThe number of care partners and clinicians present affect empathic communication. Clinicians should be prepared for empathic communication focal points to shift depending on the number of care partners and clinicians present. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings can guide development of resources to prepare clinicians to meet emotional needs in palliative care discussions. Interventions can coach clinicians to respond empathically and pragmatically to patients and care partners, particularly when multiple care partners are in attendance.

Indexed as

CaregiversEmpathyCommunicationHumansPalliative CareTape RecordingCaregiver needsCaregiver supportEmotionEmpathyTriadic communication

Identifiers

PMID37244131
PMCPMC10526983
OpenAlexW4377695344

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.