Cited by 917Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareInnovations in Medical EducationEmpathy and Medical Education

Essential Elements of Communication in Medical Encounters: The Kalamazoo Consensus Statement

Makoul, Gregory·2001·Academic Medicine

Abstract

In May 1999, 21 leaders and representatives from major medical education and professional organizations attended an invitational conference jointly sponsored by the Bayer Institute for Health Care Communication and the Fetzer INSTITUTE: The participants focused on delineating a coherent set of essential elements in physician-patient communication to: (1) facilitate the development, implementation, and evaluation of communication-oriented curricula in medical education and (2) inform the development of specific standards in this domain. Since the group included architects and representatives of five currently used models of doctor-patient communication, participants agreed that the goals might best be achieved through review and synthesis of the models. Presentations about the five models encompassed their research base, overarching views of the medical encounter, and current applications. All attendees participated in discussion of the models and common elements. Written proceedings generated during the conference were posted on an electronic listserv for review and comment by the entire group. A three-person writing committee synthesized suggestions, resolved questions, and posted a succession of drafts on a listserv. The current document was circulated to the entire group for final approval before it was submitted for publication. The group identified seven essential sets of communication tasks: (1) build the doctor-patient relationship; (2) open the discussion; (3) gather…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001888-200104000-00021

Cites

2 of 2 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Makoul, G.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Makoul, Gregory
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2001-04
Volume
76
Issue
4
Pages
390-393
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1963996662
Cited by
917
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 40 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 52 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 43
FWCI
32.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
physician-patient communication, communication models, physician-patient relationship, medical education, communication standards, shared decision-making, information sharing, patient perspectives
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Physician-Patient Relations

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