The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Doctors' communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine how patients with breast cancer want their doctors to communicate with them. DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING: Breast unit and patients' homes. PARTICIPANTS: 39 women with breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients' reports of doctors' characteristics or behaviour that they valued or deprecated. RESULTS: Patients were not primarily concerned with doctors' communication skills. Instead they emphasised doctors' enduring characteristics. Specifically, they valued doctors whom they believed were technically expert, had formed individual relationships with them, and respected them. They therefore valued forms of communication that are currently not emphasised in training and research and did not intrinsically value others that are currently thought important, including provision of information and choice. CONCLUSIONS: Women with breast cancer seek to regard their doctors as attachment figures who will care for them. They seek communication that does not compromise this view and that enhances confidence that they are cared for. Testing and elaborating our analysis will help to focus communication research and teaching on what patients need rather than on what professionals think they need.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Bowlby (1977) · doi:10.1192/bjp.130.3.201 · Cited by 2,844
Fallowfield, L., Jenkins, V., Farewell, V., Saul, J., Duffy, A., & Eves, R. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)07810-8 · Cited by 854
Cited by
Tong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
Epstein, R. M., Franks, P., Fiscella, K., Shields, C. G., Meldrum, S. C., Kravitz, R. L., & Duberstein, P. R. (2005) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.02.001 · Cited by 1,211
The communication goals and needs of cancer patients: a review
Hack, T. F., Degner, L. F., & Parker, P. A. (2005) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.949 · Cited by 398
Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework
Entwistle, V. A., & Watt, I. S. (2006) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002 · Cited by 314
“I Try to Take Care of It Myself.” How Rural Women Search for Health Information
Wathen, C. N., & Harris, R. M. (2007) · Qualitative Health Research · doi:10.1177/1049732307301236 · Cited by 107
Metadata
- Authors
- Wright, E. B., Holcombe, C., & Salmon, P.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2004-03-30
- Volume
- 328
- Issue
- 7444
- Pages
- 864
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2050939201
- Cited by
- 291
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 39.68
- 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: Doctors' communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.38046.771308.7c
- The paper
- Wright, E. B., Holcombe, C., & Salmon, P. (2004). Doctors' communication of trust, care, and respect in breast cancer: qualitative study. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38046.771308.7c
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.
