The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship
Abstract
DURING the last two decades or so, there has been a struggle over the patient's role in medical decision making that is often characterized as a conflict between autonomy and health, between the values of the patient and the values of the physician. Seeking to curtail physician dominance, many have advocated an ideal of greater patient control.1,2Others question this ideal because it fails to acknowledge the potentially imbalanced nature of this interaction when one party is sick and searching for security, and when judgments entail the interpretation of technical information.3,4Still others are trying to delineate a more mutual relationship.5,6This struggle shapes the expectations of physicians and patients as well as the ethical and legal standards for the physician's duties, informed consent, and medical malpractice. This struggle forces us to ask, What should be the ideal physician-patient relationship? We shall outline four models of the
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Freedom of the Will and the Concept of a Person
Frankfurt, H. G. (1971) · The Journal of Philosophy · doi:10.2307/2024717 · Cited by 4,663
Cited by
Shared decision making: A model for clinical practice
Elwyn, G., Frosch, D., Thomson, R., Joseph-Williams, N., Lloyd, A., Kinnersley, P., Cording, E., Tomson, D., Dodd, C., Rollnick, S., et al. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2077-6 · Cited by 4,405
Charles, C., Gafni, A., & Whelan, T. (1997) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00221-3 · Cited by 4,137
The biopsychosocial model 25 years later: principles, practice, and scientific inquiry
Borrell-Carrio, F. (2004) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.245 · Cited by 1,546
Artificial intelligence in surgery: promises and perils
Hashimoto, D. A., Rosman, G., Rus, D., & Meireles, O. R. (2018) · Annals of Surgery · doi:10.1097/sla.0000000000002693 · Cited by 1,468
Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review
Tan, S. S.-L., & Goonawardene, N. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5729 · Cited by 1,101
Metadata
- Authors
- Emanuel, E. J.
- Venue
- JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1992-04-22
- Volume
- 267
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 2221
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1991640972
- Cited by
- 2,449
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 43.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038
- The paper
- Emanuel, E. J. (1992). Four Models of the Physician-Patient Relationship. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1992.03480160079038
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
