Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 406

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Oncologist Communication About Emotion During Visits With Patients With Advanced Cancer

Pollak, Kathryn I., Arnold, Robert M., Jeffreys, Amy S., Alexander, Stewart C., Olsen, Maren K., Abernethy, Amy P., Sugg Skinner, Celette, Rodriguez, Keri L., Tulsky, James A.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

Introduction: Cancer care involves addressing patient emotion. When patients express negative emotions, empathic opportunities emerge. When oncologists respond with a continuer statement, which is one that offers empathy and allows patients to continue expressing emotions, rather than with a terminator statement, which is one that discourages disclosure, patients have less anxiety and depression and report greater satisfaction and adherence to therapy. We studied whether oncologist traits were associated with empathic opportunities and empathic responses. Patients and Methods: We audio-recorded 398 clinic conversations between 51 oncologists and 270 patients with advanced cancer; oncologists also completed surveys. Conversations were coded for the presence of empathic opportunities and oncologist responses. Analyses examined the relationship with oncologists' demographics, self-reported confidence, outcome expectancies, and comfort to address social versus technical aspects of care. Results: In 398 conversations, 37% contained at least one empathic opportunity; the range was 0 to 10, and the total empathic opportunities was 292. When they occurred, oncologists responded with continuers 22% of the time. Oncologist sex was related to the number of empathic opportunities; female patients seen by female oncologists had the most empathic opportunities (P = .03). Younger oncologists (P = .02) and those who rated their orientation as more socioemotional than technical (P = .03) were more likely to respond with empathic statements. Conclusion: Oncologists encountered few empathic opportunities and responded with empathic statements infrequently. Empathic responses were more prevalent among younger oncologists and among those who were self-rated as socioemotional. To reduce patient anxiety and increase patient satisfaction and adherence, oncologists may need training to encourage patients to express emotions and to respond empathically to patients' emotions.

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 · 10.1200/jco.2007.12.4180

Cites

29 of 29 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 29 references

Cited by

See all 406

Metadata

Authors
Pollak, K. I., Arnold, R. M., Jeffreys, A. S., Alexander, S. C., Olsen, M. K., Abernethy, A. P., Sugg Skinner, C., Rodriguez, K. L., & Tulsky, J. A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2007-12-20
Volume
25
Issue
36
Pages
5748-5752
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2137125727
Cited by
406
References
29
FWCI
10.56
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: Oncologist Communication About Emotion During Visits With Patients With Advanced Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2007.12.4180
The paper
Pollak, K. I., Arnold, R. M., Jeffreys, A. S., Alexander, S. C., Olsen, M. K., Abernethy, A. P., Sugg Skinner, C., Rodriguez, K. L., & Tulsky, J. A. (2007). Oncologist Communication About Emotion During Visits With Patients With Advanced Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.12.4180

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.