Information giving in medical consultations: the influence of patients communicative styles and personal characteristics
Abstract
Informing the patient is arguably the physician's most important communicative responsibility. Recognizing this researchers have long been interested in the question of why some patients receive more information from physicians than do others. In this paper, it is argued that the amount of information physicians provide patients during medical consultations may be influenced by two sets of factors, patients' personal characteristics (age, sex, education, and anxiety) and patients' communicative styles (question-asking, opinion-giving, and expression of concern). The analysis of audiovisual recordings of 41 physician-patient consultations in a family practice clinic revealed several notable findings: (a) information regarding diagnosis and health matters was primarily related to the patient's anxiety, education, and question-asking, (b) information regarding treatment was primarily a function of the patient's question-asking and expression of concerns, and (c) patients' assertiveness and expressiveness were strongly influenced by physicians' use of 'partnership-building' utterances that solicited the patient's questions, concerns, and opinions. The data suggest that, when attempting to explicate factors affecting physicians' informativeness, researchers must take into account features of the patients' communicative styles as well as physicians' perceptions of certain groups of patients.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When controlling for patients' communicative style, more educated patients receive more diagnostic and health information than counterparts (pr=0.38; p<0.05).
“When controlling for the influence of the patients' communicative style, there is also evidence revealing that physicians give more information to particular types of patients than to others, regardless of the patients' communicative behaviour: more educated patients receive more diagnostic and health information than did their counterparts (pr=0.38;p<0.05).”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Street et al. concluded that physicians' information giving was positively influenced by patient's communicative style features such as question-asking, affective expressiveness and opinion-giving.
“In an observational study, Street et al. conclude that the physicians' information giving was positively influenced by features of the patient's communicative style such as question-asking, affective expressiveness and opinion-giving.”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Street et al. concluded doctors provided more comments of reassurance, support and empathy to parents who were more affectively expressive (especially negative affect).
“The studies of Street et al. (supra) concluded that doctors provided more comments of reassurance, support and empathy to parents who were more affectively expressive (more specificly who expressed more negative affect).”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Patients with a lower educational level are doubly disadvantaged: first because of their more passive communicative style and secondly because of the physicians' misperception of their desire and need for information.
“In conclusion, patients with a lower educational level are doubly disadvantaged: first of all because of their more passive communicative style and secondly because the physicians' misperception of their desire and need for information.(25)”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Doctors may be less informative because they inaccurately assume that less educated and lower income patients are not particularly interested in learning about their health or don't understand this information.
“They are less informative with less educated and lower income patients, possibly because they inaccurately assume that these patients are not particularly interested in learning about their health or don't understand this information.(25,36)”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Patients with higher education experience a smaller cultural distance between them and the doctor due to similar background, so they might have fewer difficulties interacting with physician.
“Because patients with a higher education experience a smaller cultural distance (due to a similar background) between them and the doctor, they might have fewer difficulties when interacting with the physician.(25)”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Patients' communicative behaviour is directly influenced by personal and social attributes such as educational level, age, sex, anxiety.
“The patients' communicative behaviour is directly influenced by his/her personal and social attributes such as educational level, age, sex, anxiety, … .(25,26)”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
More educated patients communicate more actively (ask more questions, are more opinionated) and show more affective expressiveness, eliciting more information from their physician.
“More educated patients communicate more actively (they ask more questions, are more opinionated) and show more affective expressiveness, eliciting more information from their physician.”
From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [25]
Cites
A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974) · Language · doi:10.2307/412243 · Cited by 11,350 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430 · see citing works
Towle, A., Godolphin, W., Greenhalgh, T., & Gambrill, J. (1999) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7212.766 · Cited by 646 · see citing works
Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference?
Willems, S., De Maesschalck, S., Deveugele, M., Derese, A., & De Maeseneer, J. (2005) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2004.02.011 · Cited by 582 · see citing works
Promoting patient participation and shortening cancer consultations: a randomised trial
Brown, R. F., Butow, P. N., Dunn, S. M., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2001) · British Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1054/bjoc.2001.2073 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
The social gradient in doctor-patient communication
Verlinde, E., De Laender, N., De Maesschalck, S., Deveugele, M., & Willems, S. (2012) · International Journal for Equity in Health · doi:10.1186/1475-9276-11-12 · Cited by 307 · see citing works
Communicative styles and adaptations in physician–parent consultations
Street, R. L. (1992) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90289-3 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Self-citationAelbrecht, K., Rimondini, M., Bensing, J., Moretti, F., Willems, S., Mazzi, M., Fletcher, I., & Deveugele, M. (2015) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-014-9569-6 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Alexander, J., Hearld, L., & Mittler, J. N. (2014) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558714541967 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
- Authors
- Street, R. L.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Street, Richard L.
- ORCID
- Street, Richard L.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1991-01
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 541-548
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073354763
- Cited by
- 389
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 14.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- physician-patient communication, information giving, patient anxiety, patient education level, patient question asking, partnership development, patient characteristics, treatment information
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Affect, Age Factors, Aged, Anxiety, Assertiveness, Attitude of Health Personnel, Communication, Diagnosis, Education, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Physician-Patient Relations, Sex Factors, Therapeutics, Verbal Behavior
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
