Cited by 469Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEmpathy and Medical EducationPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues

Communication Interventions Make A Difference in Conversations Between Physicians and Patients: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Rao, Jaya K., Anderson, Lynda A., Inui, Thomas S., Frankel, Richard M.·2007·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to synthesize the findings of studies examining interventions to enhance the communication behaviors of physicians and patients during outpatient encounters. METHODS: We conducted searches of 6 databases between 1966 and 2005 to identify studies for a systematic review and synthesis of the literature. Eligible studies tested a communication intervention; were randomized controlled trials (RCTs); objectively assessed verbal communication behaviors as the primary outcome; and were published in English. Interventions were characterized by type (eg, information, modeling, feedback, practice), delivery strategy, and overall intensity. We abstracted information on the effects of the interventions on communication outcomes (eg, interpersonal and information exchanging behaviors). We examined the effectiveness of the interventions in improving the communication behaviors of physicians and patients. RESULTS: Thirty-six studies were reviewed: 18 involved physicians; 15 patients; and 3 both. Of the physician interventions, 76% included 3 or 4 types, often in the form of practice and feedback sessions. Among the patient interventions, 33% involved 1 type, and nearly all were delivered in the waiting room. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to receive higher ratings of their overall communication style and to exhibit specific patient-centered communication behaviors. Intervention patients obtained more information from physicians and exhibited greater involvement during the visit than controls. CONCLUSIONS: The interventions were associated with improved physician and patient communication behaviors. The challenge for future research is to design effective patient and physician interventions that can be integrated into practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/01.mlr.0000254516.04961.d5

Cites

70 of 70 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
Rao, J. K., Anderson, L. A., Inui, T. S., & Frankel, R. M.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Rao, Jaya K.
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2007-04
Volume
45
Issue
4
Pages
340-349
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982318442
Cited by
469
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 36 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 32
FWCI
3.94
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 › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Keywords
physician-patient communication, communication intervention, outpatient visits, patient-centered communication, feedback interventions, information interventions, patient involvement, waiting room intervention
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Professional Competence, United States, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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