Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183973›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2026

Prioritising time for communication in healthcare-a normative analysis.

Joar Björk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Joar BjörkDepartment of Health, Medicine and Caring Sciences (HMV), Swedish National Centre for Priorities in Health, Linköping University, 581 83, Linköping, Sweden. Joar.bjork@liu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7194-4875

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern healthcare faces a mismatch in terms of supply and demand which makes careful priority setting imperative. The debate on priority setting in healthcare has focussed on pharmaceuticals and other tangible medical interventions. This article instead looks at the time that healthcare professionals have at their disposal. How should healthcare professionals divide their time between tangible medical interventions and communication with patients? What communicative goals should be prioritised? This normative analysis focusses on situations which involve time consuming communication between professionals and patients, which cannot easily be carried out alongside other medical interventions or is itself the main intervention as in psychotherapy. The arguments brought forth are applicable across the healthcare panorama and apply to all healthcare professions. It is argued that there are many different communicative goals which cannot be reduced to one type. Some recommendations are given and defended regarding the priority setting of different communicative goals. For reasons of value coherence and formal equality, all patients should be given a baseline amount of time for communication and time beyond that should be prioritised based on healthcare needs. If accepted, the arguments here highlight that a substantive part of healthcare's (time) resources should be spent on communicative tasks. Indeed, it is time that we take time for communication seriously.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth PrioritiesProfessional-Patient RelationsHumansTime FactorsCommunication in healthcareEthicsFormal equalityPriority settingTrade-offs

Identifiers

PMID42183973
PMCPMC13633962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.