ArticleScientific reports2025
A cross-sectional online survey on oncologists' attitudes toward and experiences with providing patients with audio recordings of their medical encounters.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross-sectional survey of medical professionals' attitudes toward recorded doctor-patient conversations.Journal of public health research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Providing patients with audio recordings of their medical encounters, termed consultation recordings, has shown promising benefits, especially for patients with cancer. While patients favor these recordings, international research indicated that physicians have mixed feelings. To date, research specific to Germany remains limited. This study investigated German oncologists' attitudes and experiences through a nationwide cross-sectional quantitative online survey, informed by semi-structured interviews. Attitudes, prior experiences and desire for consultation recordings were assessed. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and subgroup analyses. Ninety-four physicians participated, with about half expressing a generally positive attitude, though overall attitudes were mixed. Expected benefits included improved patient recall and communication, while concerns centered around potential misuse of recordings, data confidentiality, and increased legal risks. Experiences were limited, with 12% reporting previous use. Fourteen percent expressed a willingness to offer recordings in future and 31% were undecided. This study highlights cautious openness among German oncologists, tempered by concerns over data security and legal implications, which may hinder adoption. This could be addressed by providing sound evidence regarding benefits and concerns, and enabling positive experiences. Further research should include feasibility testing in routine cancer care and re-evaluation of these results in representative samples and other specialties.
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.