The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Practitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised. Objective: To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources: Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection: Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods: Two reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis. Results: We identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference −0.43 [95% confidence interval −0.65 to −0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons. Conclusions: Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.
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
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 · Cited by 10,349
Physician Communication and Patient Adherence to Treatment: A Meta-Analysis
Haskard Zolnierek, K. B., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2009) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819a5acc · Cited by 2,489
Doyle, C., Lennox, L., & Bell, D. (2013) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570 · Cited by 2,425
Influence of context effects on health outcomes: a systematic review
Blasi, Z. D., Harkness, E., Ernst, E., Georgiou, A., & Kleijnen, J. (2001) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(00)04169-6 · Cited by 1,404
Interventions for providers to promote a patient-centred approach in clinical consultations
Dwamena, F., Holmes-Rovner, M., Gaulden, C. M., Jorgenson, S., Sadigh, G., Sikorskii, A., Lewin, S., Smith, R. C., Coffey, J., Olomu, A., et al. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003267.pub2 · Cited by 1,227
Physiciansʼ Empathy and Clinical Outcomes for Diabetic Patients
Hojat, M., Louis, D. Z., Markham, F. W., Wender, R., Rabinowitz, C., & Gonnella, J. S. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3182086fe1 · Cited by 1,203
Components of placebo effect: randomised controlled trial in patients with irritable bowel syndrome
Kaptchuk, T. J., Kelley, J. M., Conboy, L. A., Davis, R. B., Kerr, C. E., Jacobson, E. E., Kirsch, I., Schyner, R. N., Nam, B. H., Nguyen, L. T., et al. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39524.439618.25 · Cited by 1,196
Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review
Derksen, F., Bensing, J., & Lagro-Janssen, A. (2013) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp13x660814 · Cited by 1,034
Cited by
The association of physician empathy with cancer patient outcomes: A meta‐analysis
Lelorain, S., Gehenne, L., Christophe, V., & Duprez, C. (2023) · Psycho-Oncology · doi:10.1002/pon.6108 · Cited by 42
Metadata
- Authors
- Howick, J., Moscrop, A., Mebius, A., Fanshawe, T. R., Lewith, G., Bishop, F. L., Mistiaen, P., Roberts, N. W., Dieninytė, E., Hu, X.-Y., Aveyard, P., & Onakpoya, I. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-04-19
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 240-252
- ISSN
- 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
- 1758-1095
- OpenAlex
- W2801271640
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 4.49
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0141076818769477
- The paper
- Howick, J., Moscrop, A., Mebius, A., Fanshawe, T. R., Lewith, G., Bishop, F. L., Mistiaen, P., Roberts, N. W., Dieninytė, E., Hu, X.-Y., Aveyard, P., & Onakpoya, I. J. (2018). Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076818769477
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.
