The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can 40 Seconds of Compassion Reduce Patient Anxiety?
Abstract
PURPOSE: To use a standardized videotape stimulus to assess the effect of physician compassion on viewers' anxiety, information recall, treatment decisions, and assessment of physician characteristics. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-three healthy female breast cancer survivors and 87 women without cancer were recruited for this study. A randomized pretest/posttest control group design with a standardized videotape intervention was used. Participants completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), an information recall test, a compassion rating, and physician attribute rating scales. RESULTS: Women who saw an “enhanced compassion” videotape rated the physician as warmer and more caring, sensitive, and compassionate than did women who watched the “standard” videotape. Women who saw the enhanced compassion videotape were significantly less anxious after watching it than the women in the other group. Nevertheless, information recall was relatively low for both groups, and enhanced compassion did not influence patient decisions. Those who saw the enhanced compassion videotape rated the doctor significantly higher on other positive attributes, such as wanting what was best for the patient and encouraging the patient's questions and involvement in decisions. CONCLUSION: The enhanced compassion segment was short, simple, and effective in decreasing viewers' anxiety. Further research is needed to translate these findings to the clinical setting, where reducing patient anxiety is a therapeutic goal.
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
The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1086/266350 · Cited by 3,543
Cited by
Patient-Centered Communication, Ratings of Care, and Concordance of Patient and Physician Race
Cooper, L. A., Roter, D. L., Johnson, R. L., Ford, D. E., Steinwachs, D. M., & Powe, N. R. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-11-200312020-00009 · Cited by 1,371
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: autoimmune hepatitis
(2015) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2015.06.030 · Cited by 1,245
Interacting with cancer patients: the significance of physicians' communication behavior
Arora, N. K. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00449-5 · Cited by 661
Wachtell, K., Ibsen, H., Olsen, M. H., Borch-Johnsen, K., Lindholm, L. H., Mogensen, C. E., Dahlf, B., Devereux, R. B., Beevers, G., de Faire, U., et al. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-139-11-200312020-00008 · Cited by 557
Compassion: a scoping review of the healthcare literature
Sinclair, S., Norris, J. M., McConnell, S. J., Chochinov, H. M., Hack, T. F., Hagen, N. A., McClement, S., & Bouchal, S. R. (2016) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-016-0080-0 · Cited by 507
Metadata
- Authors
- Fogarty, L. A., Curbow, B. A., Wingard, J. R., McDonnell, K., & Somerfield, M. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 371-371
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W1908027174
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 23.89
- 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: Can 40 Seconds of Compassion Reduce Patient Anxiety? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.371
- The paper
- Fogarty, L. A., Curbow, B. A., Wingard, J. R., McDonnell, K., & Somerfield, M. R. (1999). Can 40 Seconds of Compassion Reduce Patient Anxiety? Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1999.17.1.371
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.