ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2024
Doctor-patient communication practices: A cross-sectional survey on Indian physicians.
Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of knowledge, attitude, and practices of Lebanese diabetic patients and their relation to medication adherence and doctor-patient communication: A cross-sectional study.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Mapping the Influence of Commercial Detailing on Prescribing Decisions: A Scoping Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Occult femoral neck fractures in ipsilateral femoral shaft and patellar fractures: A case series about diagnostic challenges and proposed strategies.Trauma case reports · 2025Article
- Trends of consultation time, waiting time, and satisfaction in family medicine/primary health care centers in Saudi Arabia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Review
- The high pedestal of morality: A guiding light for society.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2025Article
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
Background: Effective communication is a critical and fundamental element of a successful medical practice and exerts a substantial influence on patient contentment, adherence, and disease outcome. This study was planned to identify domains for improvement in doctor-patient communication to enhance good practices in the future. Methods: A cross-sectional study was carried out involving 500 randomly selected samples of clinicians from government or private medical colleges across India. Data collection about current communication practices was carried out using google questionnaire forms and analysed. Results: Among the practitioners, there were 315 males and 185 females. The average time spent on patients' consultation is 9.8 minutes. Nearly 80% of doctors do not introduce themselves to the patients, while half of the doctors consistently employ the patient's name throughout discussion. The majority (82.8%) of the doctors listen to the patients attentively and showed empathy and positive attitude towards them. The maximum number of the doctors (55%) check that they comprehend what the patient explains about the disease, explain the need of prescribed tests (78%), and inform the result of the examination to the patient (68.8%). Approximately half of the study participants did not discuss the advantages and disadvantages of given treatments, but 78% of them agreed to do so in the future. More than half of clinicians schedule patient interviews to break unpleasant news. The majority of the doctors (60.8%) communicate the future treatment strategy and prognosis to patients. Conclusion: Overall, a positive attitude was observed; however, a few domains that needed improvements were discussing awareness of the disease, advantages and disadvantages of treatment, and patient satisfaction.
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.