The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Barriers to breaking bad news among medical and surgical residents
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Communicating "bad news" to patients and their families can be difficult for physicians. OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study aimed to examine residents' perceptions of barriers to delivering bad news to patients and their family members. DESIGN: Two focus groups consisting of first- and second-year medical and surgical residents were conducted to explore residents' perceptions of the bad news delivery process. The grounded theory approach was used to identify common themes and concepts, which included: (1) guidelines to delivering bad news, (2) obstacles to delivering bad news and (3) residents' needs. SETTING: McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. SUBJECTS: First- and second-year residents. RESULTS: Residents were able to identify several guidelines important to communicating the bad news to patients and their family members. However, residents also discussed the barriers that prevented these guidelines from being implemented in day-to-day practice. Specifically, lack of emotional support from health professionals, available time as well as their own personal fears about the delivery process prevented them from being effective in their roles. Residents relayed the need for increased focus on communication skills and frequent feedback with specific emphasis on the delivery of bad news. The residents in our study also stressed the importance of processing their own feelings regarding the delivery process with staff. CONCLUSIONS: Although most residents realize important guidelines in the delivery of bad news, their own fears, a general lack of supervisory support and time constraints form barriers to their effective interaction with patients.
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.
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
The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2017) · Aldine (Routledge reprint) · doi:10.4324/9780203793206 · Cited by 25,789
Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990) · Qualitative Sociology · doi:10.1007/bf00988593 · Cited by 11,133
Cited by
Teaching Medical Students and Residents Skills for Delivering Bad News: A Review of Strategies
Rosenbaum, M. E., Ferguson, K. J., & Lobas, J. G. (2004) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200402000-00002 · Cited by 334
Pediatric residents’ perceptions of communication competencies: Implications for teaching
Rider, E. A., Volkan, K., & Hafler, J. P. (2008) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590802208842 · Cited by 92
Increasing Medical Students' Confidence in Delivering Bad News Using Different Teaching Modalities.
(2022) · PubMed Central · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Dosanjh, S., Barnes, J., & Bhandari, M.
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-03
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 197-205
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W2125494931
- Cited by
- 210
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.52
- 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: Barriers to breaking bad news among medical and surgical residents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00766.x
- The paper
- Dosanjh, S., Barnes, J., & Bhandari, M. (2001). Barriers to breaking bad news among medical and surgical residents. Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00766.x
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.