CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,069Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePsychotherapy Techniques and Applications

Meta-analysis of correlates of provider behavior in medical encounters

Hall, Judith A., Roter, Debra L., Katz, Nancy R.·1988·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/00005650-198807000-00002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article summarizes the results of 41 independent studies containing correlates of objectively measured provider behaviors in medical encounters. Provider behaviors were grouped a priori into the process categories of information giving, questions, competence, partnership building, and socioemotional behavior. Total amount of communication was also included. All correlations between variables within these categories and external variables (patient outcome variables or patient and provider background variables) were extracted. The most frequently occurring outcome variables were satisfaction, recall, and compliance, and the most frequently occurring background variables were the patient's gender, age, and social class. Average correlations and combined significance levels were calculated for each combination of process category and external variable. Results showed significant relations of small to moderate average magnitude between these external variables and almost all of the provider behavior categories. A theory of provider-patient reciprocation is proposed to account for the pattern of results.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-198807000-00002

Cites

0 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?

  • Healthcare professionals tend to involve low SES patients less in their consultations by giving them less information, spending less time building rapport with them and listening less attentively.

    “Furthermore healthcare professionals tend to involve low SES patients less in their consultations by giving them less information, spending less time building rapport with them and listening less attentively (9,11,12).”

    From High levels of socioeconomic deprivation do not inhibit patients’ communication of concerns in head and neck cancer review clinics (2018) · cites this paper as [9]

  • Hall et al. found a positive relationship between patient's social class and information giving.

    “This study revealed a positive relationship between patient's social class (measured by income, education or other, non-specified social class indices) and information giving.”

    From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [24]

  • Hall et al. meta-analysis found none of the affective behaviour determinants (social talk, positive/negative talk) related to any determinant of patients' social class.

    “Although a link between these aspects of affective behaviour and the patients' satisfaction and compliance can be identified, none of these determinants were found to be related to any determinant of the patients' social class.(24)”

    From Socio-economic status of the patient and doctor–patient communication: does it make a difference? (2005) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hall, J. A., Roter, D. L., & Katz, N. R.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Judith A.
ORCID
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1988-07
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
657-675
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005650-198807000-00002
OpenAlex
W2071796477
Cited by
1,069
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 43
FWCI
8.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
Keywords
provider behavior, healthcare encounters, patient-provider communication, information giving, provider competence, partnership development, social-emotional behavior, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, patient characteristics
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care, Bibliographies as Topic, Communication, Consumer Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Compliance, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional-Patient Relations, Mental Recall, Social Class

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