Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 672

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Study of Patient Clues and Physician Responses in Primary Care and Surgical Settings

Levinson, Wendy·2000·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Patients often present clues (direct or indirect comments about personal aspects of their lives or their emotions) during conversations with their physicians. These clues represent opportunities for physicians to demonstrate understanding and empathy and thus, to deepen the therapeutic alliance that is at the heart of clinical care. A paucity of information exists regarding how physicians address the psychological and social concerns of patients. OBJECTIVES: To assess how patients present clues and how physicians respond to these clues in routine primary care and surgical settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Descriptive, qualitative study of 116 randomly selected routine office visits to 54 primary care physicians and 62 surgeons in community-based practices in Oregon and Colorado, audiotaped and transcribed in 1994. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of presentation of clues by patients during office visits, nature (emotional vs social) and content of clues, and nature of physician responses to clues, coded as positive or missed opportunity. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent and 53% of the visits in primary care and surgery, respectively, included 1 or more clues. During visits with clues, the mean number of clues per visit was 2.6 in primary care and 1.9 in surgery. Patients initiated approximately 70% of clues, and physicians initiated 30%. Seventy-six percent of patient-initiated clues in primary care settings and 60% in surgical settings were emotional in nature. In surgery, 70% of emotional clues related to patients' feelings about their biomedical condition, while in primary care, emotional clues more often related to psychological or social concerns (80%) in patients' lives. Physicians responded positively to patient emotions in 38% of cases in surgery and 21% in primary care, but more frequently they missed opportunities to adequately acknowledge patients' feelings. Visits with missed opportunities tended to be longer than visits with a positive response. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that physicians in both primary care and surgery can improve their ability to respond to patient clues even in the context of their busy clinical practices. JAMA. 2000;284:1021-1027

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.284.8.1021

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 672

Metadata

Authors
Levinson, W.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2000-08-23
Volume
284
Issue
8
Pages
1021
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2026081831
Cited by
672
References
1
FWCI
33.03
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: A Study of Patient Clues and Physician Responses in Primary Care and Surgical Settings. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.284.8.1021
The paper
Levinson, W. (2000). A Study of Patient Clues and Physician Responses in Primary Care and Surgical Settings. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.8.1021

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.