Observational studyBMJ open2025
What influences how physicians frame information for patients? An explorative quantitative study on hospital interactions from different specialties.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhysicians frame medical information for patients in different ways, impacting patient outcomes. What underlies their framing choices has not been investigated.
objectiveTo explore the use and function of information framing practices in medical interactions.
designExplorative, quantitative observational study with a mixed-methods design. SETTING AND
participants28 videorecorded hospital interactions, ranging from short-term/acute (orthopaedic surgery, gynaecology) to long-term/chronic care (oncology, gastroenterology) and involving 14 physicians and 28 patients. OUTCOME MEASURES: Using a previously developed coding system, we analysed physicians' framing practices. We extracted information sharing functions qualitatively, checking 10% of the analysis with an independent assessment from the physicians. To explore whether variation in physicians' use of information frames stemmed from individual or clinical specialty differences, we estimated intraclass correlations. To assess how their use of information frames varied at the macro level (across clinical specialties) and micro (the immediate function in the interaction), we estimated linear mixed models adjusted for the number of words.
resultsVariation in framing practices was mainly observed at the level of physicians nested within the same clinical unit (9.5% of the overall variance explained vs 1.3% for the unit level and 0.7% for the individual level). Physicians from different clinical units differed significantly in how they framed information, with the main differences between the gastroenterology and oncology units (mean difference=1.88; 95% CI 0.97; 2.79; p<0.001). The primary function of their information sharing also varied significantly across clinical specialties (all p<0.001 in χ
conclusionResults revealed signature marks of clinical units in terms of information sharing practices. Physicians' information framing choices were driven both by the macro level (the clinical unit) and micro (the specific function for sharing information at that moment), thus highlighting potential areas for future interventions.
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.