Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 196

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A conceptual framework for patient–professional communication: an application to the cancer context

Feldman‐Stewart, D., Brundage, M.D., Tishelman, C.·2005·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

We present a conceptual framework of one‐to‐one, in‐person communication that occurs between a health‐care professional and a patient. The framework is intended as a tool for organizing and summarizing relevant research but it can also help guide assessing the communication process and can help guide development of interventions to improve the process. The framework includes four key components, with a focus on elements that can be modified. The first component is the focus of the interaction: each participant's communication goals. The second component consists of the participants themselves, each with five key attributes that determine, in part, how they address their goals. The third component is the communication process: each person both conveys messages and receives messages, and the messages themselves can be verbal, non‐verbal, or silent. The communication process is iterative and extended in time with one act having an impact on following acts. Finally, the fourth component is the environment in which the communication occurs, both the immediate physical setting and the context beyond. Important aspects of the environment, identified as external factors, affect the communication process through their impact on the participants' attributes. The framework builds on classic communication frameworks to which it adds unique elements. Some of its unique aspects include the prominent role of the participants' goals and its distinct recognition that messages are conveyed through silence. The framework serves as a common conceptualization of factors important to successful communication for the remaining review papers in this series and for future studies of practitioner–patient communication. Copyright © 2005 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.950

Cites

5 of 5 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

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 196

Metadata

Authors
Feldman‐Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., & Tishelman, C.
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-09-30
Volume
14
Issue
10
Pages
801-809
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2085427210
Cited by
196
References
5
FWCI
14.08
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 conceptual framework for patient–professional communication: an application to the cancer context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pon.950
The paper
Feldman‐Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., & Tishelman, C. (2005). A conceptual framework for patient–professional communication: an application to the cancer context. Psycho-Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.950

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.