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.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Peer-delivered combined EMD and imagery rescripting for traumatized Chinese university students: a RCT.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2026Trial
- Digital Standardized Patients: Conceptual Framework for Generative AI-Empowered Medical Education.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- Encouraging Clinical Trial Participation Through Qualitative Study and Behavior Change Methodology.Circulation. Population health and outcomes · 2026Article
- Patient experiences and perceptions of occupational therapy services in Chinese rehabilitation: a qualitative study.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Expedient truth-telling in the ICU: a qualitative content analysis.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Determinants of the Public's Behavioral Intention to Adopt AI-Assisted Lung Cancer Screening: An Extended UTAUT Model Integrating Trust and Risk.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Challenges, care gaps, and coping mechanisms in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers following palliative gastrointestinal surgery.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators of patient activation among older adults with cancer in China: a descriptive qualitative study based on ecological systems theory.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Leading with Integrity: Impact of Ethical Leadership on Performance of Healthcare Professionals in Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Psychosocial barriers and cultural contexts in chemotherapy decision-making: a qualitative study of advanced lung cancer patients in China.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.