ArticleCancer medicine2024
The influence of "bad news" and "neutral/good news" on patients' perception of physician empathy during oncology consultations.
Article in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review identifying effective teaching methods and their combinations for increasing empathy in physicians: pairwise and network meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Improving the oncology care pathway through the experience of patients and their caregiver.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- The influence of "bad news" and "neutral/good news" on patients' perception of physician empathy during oncology consultations.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesBeing met with empathy increases information sharing, treatment coherence, and helps patients to recover faster. However, we do not know how the content of the conversation about disease progression, new treatments, or other issues concerning serious illness affects patients' perceptions of the physician's empathy, and thus, the quality of the conversation. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that patients will rate their physician lower following a "bad news" consultation using the consultation and relational empathy (CARE) measure.
methodsA total of 186 outpatients from the Department of Oncology were recruited for this study. After meeting with a patient, the physician filled out a form, placing the patient in either the "bad news" group, or the "neutral/good news" group along with information about the patient and the consultation. The patient was given the CARE measure after the visit.
resultsThe patients who had received bad news rated their physicians a significantly lower score on the CARE measure, even though the effect size was small, than those who had neutral/good news. On average, bad news consultations were 11 min longer.
conclusionsPhysicians need to be aware of the patients' need to be known and understood, in addition to having skills to attend to emotional cues and concerns, since the current study's finding could be a sign either of the content being projected onto the physician or that the physician is focused on the message rather than on the patient.
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.