Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oncologists' reactions to cancer patients' verbal cues

Butow, P.N., Brown, R.F., Cogar, S., Tattersall, M.H.N., Dunn, S.M.·2002·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

The diagnosis and treatment of cancer cause considerable psychological distress and morbidity. Consequently, cancer patients have high needs for informational and emotional support and doctors vary in their ability to recognise and address these needs. This study investigated patients' attempts to gain informational and emotional support through the use of verbal cues. The sample consisted of 298 patients with heterogeneous cancers, seeing one of five medical and four radiation oncologists for the first time. Sociodemographic variables and patient anxiety and satisfaction ratings were obtained. Transcripts of the audiotaped consultations were analysed and question‐asking, use of indirect cues, cue type (informational or emotional), content categories in which questions and cues occurred and doctor response (responded to or not responded to), were recorded. Patients asked a median of 11 questions and gave two cues per consultation, usually during treatment discussions. Patients gave, and doctors responded to, more informational than emotional cues. Patients gave significantly more informational cues during longer consultations. Younger and female patients gave more cues for emotional support and asked questions. No demographic variables were associated with the doctors' response to emotional and informational cues; however, consultations in which more informational cues were responded to were shorter, even when controlling for the number of cues given. Satisfaction with the consultation and patient anxiety were unaffected by doctors' responses to cues. Overall, results showed that doctors effectively identify and respond to the majority of informational cues; however, they are less observant of and able to address cues for emotional support. Cues can be addressed without lengthening the consultation or increasing patient anxiety. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 · 10.1002/pon.556

Cites

2 of 2 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 309

Metadata

Authors
Butow, P. N., Brown, R. F., Cogar, S., Tattersall, M. H. N., & Dunn, S. M.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
47-58
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W1988119144
Cited by
309
References
2
FWCI
17.20
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: Oncologists' reactions to cancer patients' verbal cues. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pon.556
The paper
Butow, P. N., Brown, R. F., Cogar, S., Tattersall, M. H. N., & Dunn, S. M. (2002). Oncologists' reactions to cancer patients' verbal cues. Psycho-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.556

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.