Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37822775›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Enhancing effective healthcare communication in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand: Considerations for research, teaching, policy, and practice.

Sarah J White, Brendan Condon, Philippa Ditton-Phare, Natalie Dodd, John Gilroy, Deborah Hersh, Debra Kerr, Kelly Lambert, Zachary E McPherson, Judy Mullan and 5 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Improving communication skills in caregivers: an adaptation and pilot test of a brief training module for caregivers of people with cancer in Australia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

15 authors.

Sarah J WhiteCentre for Social Impact, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Brendan CondonWarrnambool Clinical School, Deakin University, Warrnambool, Australia.
Philippa Ditton-PhareSchool of Medicine & Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Natalie DoddSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia.
John GilroyFaculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Deborah HershCurtin School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
Debra KerrInstitute for Healthcare Transformation, Centre for Quality and Patient Safety, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Kelly LambertSchool of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Zachary E McPhersonChildren's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, Australia.
Judy MullanGraduate School of Medicine, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Shannon SaadRPA Virtual Hospital, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, Australia.
Maria StubbeDepartment of Primary Health Care and General Practice, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Matthew Warren-JamesSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, University of Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Australia.
Kristie R WeirSydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia and Institute of Primary Health Care BIHAM, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Conor GilliganSchool of Medicine & Public Health, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: In this article we present a conceptual framework for enhancing effective healthcare communication in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods: Through an iterative, deliberative dialogue approach, we, as experts from a variety of health professions and academic disciplines, worked together to identify core values and considerations for healthcare communication across numerous health professions and disciplines and within research, teaching, policy, and practice contexts. Results: The framework developed includes five core values at its centre: equitable, inclusive, evidence-based, collaborative, reflective. Around this are concentric circles showing key elements of collaborators, modality, context, and purpose. Each of these is explored. Conclusion: This work may support benchmarking for healthcare providers, researchers, policymakers, and educators across a breadth of professions to help improve communication in clinical practice. The framework will also help to identify areas across disciplines that are shared and potentially idiosyncratic for various professions to promote interprofessional recognition, education, and collaboration. Innovation: This framework is designed to start conversations, to form the foundation of a dialogue about the priorities and key considerations for developing teaching curricula, professional development, and research programs related to healthcare communication, providing a set of values specifically for the unique contexts of Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. It can also be used to guide interdisciplinary healthcare professionals in advancing research, teaching, policy, and practice related to healthcare communication.

Indexed as

AustraliaCommunication educationCommunication policyCommunication practiceCommunication researchNew Zealand

Identifiers

PMID37822775
PMCPMC10562187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.