ArticlePatient preference and adherence2023
The attitude of the Public Toward Social History Taking in Southern Saudi Arabia.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Social history taking is an important element of a medical interview. No previous studies, however, addressed public attitudes regarding social history taking in Saudi Arabia. Objective: This study explores public attitudes about the importance of social history taking by doctors in Southern Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted to collect public opinion about social history taking using a self-administered questionnaire. Social history taking was defined as questions about general sociodemographics (job, income, marital status, housing conditions, and animal contact) and social habits (travel, smoking, alcohol drinking, illicit drug use, and sexual history). Descriptive statistics were conducted, along with a comparison between categorical variables. Results: A total of 510 respondents completed the questionnaire, of which 381 (74.7%) had a medical history taken before. A complete social taking was not obtained from those with medical history previously taken. Marital status (73.2%), smoking (49.1%), and occupation (32.8%) were the commonest inquiries, while income (3.7%) and sexual history (6.6%) were the least. Most respondents had no reservations about answering questions about their social history. Among the general demographic questions, job and marital status were more likely to be answered, whereas income and housing inquiries were less likely to be answered. Among social habits, sexual history followed by illicit drug use and alcohol drinking inquiries were less likely to be answered. Conclusion: Detailed social history taking is uncommon among doctors. The public is open to discussing their social status and habits. However, questions involving income, housing, and some social habits like illicit drugs, alcohol, and sexual history are less likely to be faithfully reported and thus need to be handled appropriately. It is crucial for healthcare providers to approach social history taking with sensitivity and respect and to create a private environment for patients where they can freely and accurately share their social histories.
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.