The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Autonomy-related behaviors of patient companions and their effect on decision-making activity in geriatric primary care visits
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“Although most companion behaviors are helpful, companion involvement can also raise challenges [7].”
From Non-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“The presence of a companion favorably influences physician and patient understanding [6–9]”
From Non-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Few studies have examined the very significant role played by MVCs before and after a healthcare visit [12] with most literature focusing purely on their contributions during the healthcare encounter [3, 7–10, 14, 21, 31].”
From Non-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Most existing studies of MVCs include mainly white patients and focus on spouse MVCs [6, 7, 21, 22].”
From Non-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“These studies typically examine the influence of the companion on the provider, the patient, or on the provider-patient interaction and report similar roles to those described by our participants; advocacy and assistance with communication and information exchange.”
From Non-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [7]
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
Principles of Biomedical Ethics
(2012) · Thieves of Virtue · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9079.003.0009 · Cited by 13,453
Cited by
Dionne-Odom, J. N., Ejem, D., Wells, R., Barnato, A. E., Taylor, R. A., Rocque, G. B., Turkman, Y. E., Kenny, M., Ivankova, N. V., Bakitas, M. A., et al. (2019) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0212967 · Cited by 111
Wolff, J. L., Guan, Y., Boyd, C. M., Vick, J., Amjad, H., Roth, D. L., Gitlin, L. N., & Roter, D. L. (2017) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2016.10.022 · Cited by 65
Self-citationBogza, L.-M., Patry-Lebeau, C., Farmanova, E., Witteman, H. O., Elliott, J., Stolee, P., Hudon, C., & Giguere, A. M. C. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/17406 · Cited by 52
Wolff, J. L., & Roter, D. L. (2012) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1957-5 · Cited by 53
Self-citationNon-spouse companions accompanying older adults to medical visits: a qualitative analysis
Sheehan, O. C., Graham-Phillips, A. L., Wilson, J. D., Crews, D. C., Holt, C. L., Gabbard, J., Smith, K. C., Wolff, J. L., & Roth, D. L. (2019) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-019-1098-y · Cited by 26
Metadata
- Authors
- Clayman, M. L., Roter, D., Wissow, L. S., & Bandeen-Roche, K.
- Venue
- Social Science & Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2005-04
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1583-1591
- ISSN
- 0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1987953094
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.21
- 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: Autonomy-related behaviors of patient companions and their effect on decision-making activity in geriatric primary care visits. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.004
- The paper
- Clayman, M. L., Roter, D., Wissow, L. S., & Bandeen-Roche, K. (2005). Autonomy-related behaviors of patient companions and their effect on decision-making activity in geriatric primary care visits. Social Science & Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.004
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.
