Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41078464›Full record

ArticleJournal of public health research2025

Cross-sectional survey of medical professionals' attitudes toward recorded doctor-patient conversations.

Chuyun Ya, Peitao Suo, Shu Li

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of public health research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Chuyun YaDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, The People's Republic of China.
Peitao SuoDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, The People's Republic of China.
Shu LiDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, The People's Republic of China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6073-6285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The study investigates Chinese healthcare professionals' attitudes toward patient-initiated audio-recordings of medical consultations, a growing practice aimed at improving patient comprehension, while also presenting legal, ethical, and clinical challenges. Design and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from March to September 2022 as a pilot study. Physicians from various specialties across China were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire. The survey assessed demographic data, attitudes toward patient-led recordings, and the reasons behind these attitudes. Statistical analyses, including chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, were applied to identify significant differences, with a Results: Out of 968 valid responses, 36.8% of physicians supported patient-initiated recordings, while 63.2% were opposed. Significant differences were observed based on gender, age, years of practice, and professional title, but not on education level or hospital type. Supporters cited enhanced communication and respect for patient autonomy as key reasons, while opponents expressed concerns about potential legal risks, reduced medical efficiency, and damage to trust in the doctor-patient relationship. Conclusions: The majority of participating physicians in our study remain cautious about patient-initiated recordings, reflecting a need for clearer regulatory frameworks and protections. This caution highlights the complexity of balancing patient engagement with the practicalities of clinical work. Practice implications: Establishing standardized guidelines and offering training for healthcare professionals on managing recorded consultations could alleviate concerns and foster a more collaborative doctor-patient relationship.

Indexed as

physician-patient communicationqualitative studyquestionnairerecorded conversationsshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID41078464
PMCPMC12511677

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.