Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37575567›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2023

Digital technology in medical visits: a critical review of its impact on doctor-patient communication.

Filomena Marino, Francesca Alby, Cristina Zucchermaglio, Marilena Fatigante

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Filomena MarinoDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Francesca AlbyDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Cristina ZucchermaglioDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marilena FatiganteDepartment of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the rapid advances of digital technology, computer-mediated medical practices are becoming increasingly dominant in medical visits. However, the question of how to ensure effective, patient-centered communication in this transition remains crucial. In this mini-review, we explore this topic by reviewing quantitative and survey-based studies, as well as discursive-interactional studies that focus on the visit as a communicative event. The review is organized into four sections: the introductory section provides a brief synthesis of the two main models used in medical practice and describes the effects of patient-centered communication practices on patients' health and well-being. The second section presents and discusses qualitative and quantitative studies that assess the effect of technology on medical interaction and its impact on patient-centered communication. The third section focuses on whether and how the digital medical record represents a "potential communication risk" during doctor-patient interactions and explores how certain pen-and-paper literacy practices could help mitigate these challenges. In the concluding section, we outline and analyze three key considerations for utilizing technologies to foster and enhance patient-centered communication during medical visits.

Indexed as

digital technologyliteracy practicesmedical communicationmedical visitpatient centered approach

Identifiers

PMID37575567
PMCPMC10412815

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.