Cited by 9Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEmpathy and Medical EducationLanguage, Discourse, Communication Strategies

Pediatric residents' response to ambiguous words about child discipline and behavior

Clayman, Marla L., Wissow, Lawrence S.·2004·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Frequently, doctors have been noted to seemingly ignore or brush off patients' bids to discuss sensitive issues. In some of these cases, however, apparent ignoring could be the result of the doctor mistakenly interpreting the meaning of potentially ambiguous terms used by the patient. This study demonstrates the frequency with which parents use and pediatricians clarify ambiguous terms describing child behavior and physical punishment. Sixty-one (26%) of 234 audiotapes from a systematic cross-sectional sample of non-urgent visits with pediatric residents included at least one episode in which such words were used by a parent. Discussion following each use was classified as: (a) clarifying its meaning, (b) discussing without clarification, (c) ignoring the use of the word, or (d) contradicting the negative attribution. In 61 visits, the parent or child was the first to use the potentially ambiguous term. Physicians clarified 7 (11%) of the terms, ignored 23 (38%), contradicted 7 (11%), and discussed without clarification 24 (39%). Clarifying and contradicting were associated with a shorter doctor-patient relationship than ignoring or discussing without clarification. Doctors who sought clarification were the least dominant. A non-dismissive response to ambiguous words may be a marker for both the stage of the doctor-patient relationship and a doctor's overall interactive style. Considering clarification may be helpful in understanding doctors' responses to patients' cues.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0738-3991(03)00245-3

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • There is uncertainty about the degree of consensus in the general population about the interpretations of certain parenting items, such as time-out.

    “There is also an uncertainty to the degree of consensus in the general population about the interpretations of certain parenting items, such as time-out (Clayman and Wissow, 2004).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clayman, M. L., & Wissow, L. S.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Wissow, Lawrence S.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-10
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
16-21
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1988732810
Cited by
9
References
1
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
pediatric residents, ambiguous words, child discipline, corporal punishment, child behavior, physician-patient communication, physician-patient relationship, physician dominance, parental concerns, physician-patient interaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child Rearing, Child, Preschool, Communication Barriers, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cues, Female, Health Services Research, Humans, Internship and Residency, Kinesics, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Motivation, Parents, Pediatrics, Physician's Role, Primary Health Care, Professional-Family Relations, Punishment, Semantics, Tape Recording, Needs Assessment

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