ArticlePatient education and counseling2026
Observing, selecting, and building with bridging questions: An exploratory microanalysis of clinical interactional curiosity.
Article in Patient education and counseling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to identify and characterize physicians' observable behaviors that expressed clinical curiosity in medical interactions.
methodsThis exploratory study used microanalysis of clinical interaction (MCI) to analyze video-recorded routine primary care visits from a University Hospital in the US. Purposive sampling and data saturation were used to define the sample for the study. Three analysts conducted key analytical steps collaboratively: (i) familiarizing with the material, (ii) collecting and selecting relevant observations, (iii) developing a coding manual, and (iv) consensus coding cases and their characteristics.
resultsWe identified "bridging questions" as a key exemplification of showing clinical curiosity in the interaction, i.e. "physician demonstrations of attentiveness to what patients have said and done, during which they invite the patient to contribute something more in a particular direction". In the five analyzed visits, we found 172 bridging questions (mean of 35 per visit) and 60 discrete clinical interactional curiosity sequences. We analyzed sequences around bridging questions, ending when either the topic changed or the physician made a clinical decision. To offer insight into how physicians use bridging questions, we identified key characteristics: what elicited the bridging question and what the bridging question achieved during the sequence in terms of patient engagement and clinical decisions.
conclusionOur findings provide insight into ways physicians can make clinical curiosity visible during medical interactions, thus offering a means for clinicians, educators, and researchers to recognize and mobilize a potential display of clinical curiosity when talking with patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Medical educators might consider teaching bridging questions as a way to mobilize clinical curiosity orienting to what the patient has said and done. While such a communicative action appears simple at first glance, it actually demonstrates that a set of skills is in place: attentiveness, flexibility, and clinical reasoning.
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.