Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,489

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Physician Communication and Patient Adherence to Treatment: A Meta-Analysis

Open access
Haskard Zolnierek, Kelly B., DiMatteo, M Robin·2009·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819a5acc
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous empirical studies from various populations and settings link patient treatment adherence to physician-patient communication. Meta-analysis allows estimates of the overall effects both in correlational research and in experimental interventions involving the training of physicians' communication skills. OBJECTIVES: Calculation and analysis of "r effect sizes" and moderators of the relationship between physician's communication and patient adherence, and the effects of communication training on adherence to treatment regimens for varying medical conditions. METHODS: Thorough search of published literature (1949-August 2008) producing separate effects from 106 correlational studies and 21 experimental interventions. Determination of random effects model statistics and the detailed examination of study variability using moderator analyses. RESULTS: Physician communication is significantly positively correlated with patient adherence; there is a 19% higher risk of non-adherence among patients whose physician communicates poorly than among patients whose physician communicates well. Training physicians in communication skills results in substantial and significant improvements in patient adherence such that with physician communication training, the odds of patient adherence are 1.62 times higher than when a physician receives no training. CONCLUSION: Communication in medical care is highly correlated with better patient adherence, and training physicians to communicate better enhances their patients' adherence. Findings can contribute to medical education and to interventions to improve adherence, supporting arguments that communication is important and resources devoted to improving it are worth investing in. Communication is thus an important factor over which physicians have some control in helping their patients to adhere.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819a5acc

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Haskard Zolnierek, K. B., & DiMatteo, M. R.
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2009-08
Volume
47
Issue
8
Pages
826-834
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819a5acc
OpenAlex
W2009989010
Cited by
2,489
References
12
FWCI
95.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

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.