Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40860605›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2025

Doctor-Patient Communication Models, Patient Decision-Making Participation, and Patient Emotional Expression: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Samples from the UK and China.

Chao Liu, Ye-Hui Tu, Li-Jen Lin, Hao Chen, Thu-Hua Liu, Huang-Li Lin, Renbo Liu, Wen-Ko Chiou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Chao Liu *School of Journalism and Communication, Hua Qiao University, Xiamen, 361021, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0001-9257-4519
Ye-Hui Tu *School of Journalism and Communication, Hua Qiao University, Xiamen, 361021, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0001-0292-8860
Li-Jen Lin *General Education Center, Mindfulness Meditation Center, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Hao ChenBusiness Analytics Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, 33302, Taiwan.
Thu-Hua LiuDepartment of Industrial Design, Mindfulness Meditation Center, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang-Li LinDepartment of Psychiatry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Renbo LiuFaculty of Natural, Mathematical & Engineering Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Wen-Ko ChiouDepartment of Industrial Design, Mindfulness Meditation Center, Ming Chi University of Technology, New Taipei, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective doctor-patient communication is critical to healthcare outcomes, but cultural differences can significantly influence communication dynamics. Understanding how cultural factors shape communication styles is essential, particularly in cross-cultural healthcare settings. Power distance and individualism/collectivism are key cultural dimensions that may impact doctor-patient interactions. Objective: This study aims to examine the impact of cultural differences between China and the UK on doctor-patient communication, focusing on communication quality, patient participation in decision-making, and emotional expression. Methods: A total of 1000 participants (500 from China and 500 from the UK) were surveyed using four measurement tools: the Doctor-Patient Communication Scale (DPCS), the Hofstede Cultural Dimensions Questionnaire (HCDQ), the Patient Participation in Decision-Making Scale (PPDMS), and the Emotional Expression in Healthcare Scale (EEHS). The data were analyzed using independent samples Results: The findings reveal significant cultural differences between China and the UK in terms of communication quality, patient participation, and emotional expression. British patients reported significantly higher scores on all scales, reflecting the more egalitarian and individualistic communication style in the UK compared to the more hierarchical and collectivist style in China. Power distance and individualism/collectivism were significant predictors of communication outcomes, with higher power distance and stronger collectivism associated with lower communication quality, reduced patient participation, and more restrained emotional expression. Conclusion: Cultural dimensions significantly affect doctor-patient communication, highlighting the importance of considering cultural differences in healthcare settings. This study underscores the need for tailored communication strategies that accommodate cultural norms to improve patient engagement and healthcare outcomes across different cultural contexts. Future research should address the limitations of this study, including its reliance on self-reported data, and explore additional cultural contexts to better understand the complexities of cross-cultural healthcare communication.

Indexed as

cultural differencesdecision-making participationdoctor-patient communicationemotional expressionindividualism/collectivismpower distance

Identifiers

PMID40860605
PMCPMC12372933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.