Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 276

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD

Curtis, J.R., Engelberg, R.A., Nielsen, E.L., Au, D.H., Patrick, D.L.·2004·European Respiratory Journal

Abstract

Since patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) infrequently discuss treatment preferences about end-of-life care with physicians, the goal of the present study was to identify which specific areas of communication about end-of-life care occur between patients with severe COPD and their physicians, and how patients rate the quality of this communication. A total of 115 patients with oxygen-dependent COPD, identified in pulmonary clinics in three hospitals and through an oxygen delivery company, were enrolled in this study. A 17‐item quality of communication questionnaire (QOC) was administered to patients, along with other measures, including satisfaction with care. The patients reported that most physicians do not discuss how long the patients have to live, what dying might be like or patients' spirituality. Patients rated physicians highly at listening and answering questions. Areas patients rated relatively low included discussing prognosis, what dying might be like and spirituality/religion. Patients' assessments of physicians' overall communication and communication about treatment correlated well with the QOC. Patients' overall satisfaction with care also correlated significantly with the QOC. In conclusion, this study identifies areas of communication that physicians do not address and areas that patients rate poorly, including talking about prognosis, dying and spirituality. These areas may provide targets for interventions to improve communication about end-of-life care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Future studies should determine the responsiveness of these items to interventions, and the effect such interventions have on patient satisfaction and quality of care.

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 · 10.1183/09031936.04.00010104

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 276

Metadata

Authors
Curtis, J. R., Engelberg, R. A., Nielsen, E. L., Au, D. H., & Patrick, D. L.
Venue
European Respiratory Journal
Published
2004-08
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
200-205
ISSN
  • 0903-1936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-3003
OpenAlex
W1979287183
Cited by
276
References
5
FWCI
9.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1183/09031936.04.00010104
The paper
Curtis, J. R., Engelberg, R. A., Nielsen, E. L., Au, D. H., & Patrick, D. L. (2004). Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD. European Respiratory Journal. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.04.00010104

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.