Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 324

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perception of empathy in the therapeutic encounter: Effects on the common cold

Open access
Rakel, David, Barrett, Bruce, Zhang, Zhengjun, Hoeft, Theresa, Chewning, Betty, Marchand, Lucille, Scheder, Jo·2011·Patient Education and Counseling
DOI 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To evaluate the effects of patient-practitioner interaction on the severity and duration of the common cold. Methods We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 719 patients with new cold onset. Participants were randomized to three groups: no patient-practitioner interaction, “standard” interaction or an “enhanced” interaction. Cold severity was assessed twice daily. Patients randomized to practitioner visits used the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure to rate clinician empathy. Interleukin 8 (IL-8) and neutrophil counts were obtained from nasal wash at baseline and 48 hours later. Results Patients’ perceptions of the clinical encounter were associated with reduced cold severity and duration. Encounters rated perfect on the CARE score had reduced severity (Perfect: 223, sub-perfect: 271, p=0.04) and duration (Perfect: 5.89 days, sub-perfect: 7.00 days, p=0.003). CARE scores were also associated with a more significant change in IL-8 (Perfect: mean IL-8 change 1586, sub-perfect: 72, p=0.02) and neutrophil count (Perfect: 49, sub-perfect: 12, p=0.09). Conclusions When patients perceive clinicians as empathetic, rating them perfect on the CARE tool, the severity, duration and objective measures (IL-8 and neutrophils) of the common cold significantly change. Practice Implications This study helps us understand the importance of the perception of empathy in a therapeutic encounter.

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 · 10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009

Cites

56 of 56 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 56 references

Cited by

See all 324

Metadata

Authors
Rakel, D., Barrett, B., Zhang, Z., Hoeft, T., Chewning, B., Marchand, L., & Scheder, J.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-12
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
390-397
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009
OpenAlex
W2014923730
Cited by
324
References
56
FWCI
6.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Perception of empathy in the therapeutic encounter: Effects on the common cold. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009
The paper
Rakel, D., Barrett, B., Zhang, Z., Hoeft, T., Chewning, B., Marchand, L., & Scheder, J. (2011). Perception of empathy in the therapeutic encounter: Effects on the common cold. Patient Education and Counseling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2011.01.009

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.