Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

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

Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study

Open access
The, A.-M., Hak, T., Koeter, G., van der Wal, G.·2000·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To discover and explore the factors that result in "false optimism about recovery" observed in patients with small cell lung cancer. DESIGN: A qualitative observational (ethnographic) study in two stages over four years. SETTING: Lung diseases ward and outpatient clinic in university hospital in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 35 patients with small cell lung cancer. RESULTS: "False optimism about recovery" usually developed during the (first) course of chemotherapy and was most prevalent when the cancer could no longer be seen in the x ray pictures. This optimism tended to vanish when the tumour recurred, but it could develop again, though to a lesser extent, during further courses of chemotherapy. Patients gradually found out the facts about their poor prognosis, partly because of physical deterioration and partly through contact with fellow patients who were in a more advanced stage of the illness and were dying. "False optimism about recovery" was the result an association between doctors' activism and patients' adherence to the treatment calendar and to the "recovery plot," which allowed them not to acknowledge explicitly what they should and could know. The doctor did and did not want to pronounce a "death sentence" and the patient did and did not want to hear it. CONCLUSION: Solutions to the problem of collusion between doctor and patient require an active, patient oriented approach from the doctor. Perhaps solutions have to be found outside the doctor-patient relationship itself - for example, by involving "treatment brokers."

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 · 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1376

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

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
The, A.-M., Hak, T., Koeter, G., & van der Wal, G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2000-12-02
Volume
321
Issue
7273
Pages
1376-1381
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2135025983
Cited by
533
References
12
FWCI
19.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1376
The paper
The, A.-M., Hak, T., Koeter, G., & van der Wal, G. (2000). Collusion in doctor-patient communication about imminent death: an ethnographic study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1376

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.