Cited by 578Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsEmpathy and Medical Education

Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials

Open access
Griffin, S. J.·2004·The Annals of Family Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: We wanted to identify published randomized trials of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners, develop taxonomies of the interventions and outcomes, and assess the evidence that such interventions improve patients' health and well-being. METHODS: Undertaking a systematic review of randomized trials, we sought trials in primary and secondary care with health-related outcomes, which we found by searching MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases through 1999. We also completed one round of manual citation searching. RESULTS: Thirty-five trials were included. Most were set in primary care in North America. Trials were heterogeneous in populations, settings, interventions, and measures. Interventions frequently combined several poorly described elements. Explicit theoretical underpinning was rare, and only one study linked intervention through process to outcome measures. Health outcomes were rarely measured objectively (6 of 35), and only 4 trials with health outcomes met predefined quality criteria. Interventions frequently altered the process of interactions (significantly in 73%, 22 of 30 trials). Principal outcomes favored the intervention group in 74% of trials (26 of 35), reaching statistical significance in 14 (40%). Positive effects on health outcomes achieved statistical significance in 44% of trials (11 of 25); negative effects were uncommon (5 of 25, 20%). Simple approaches to increasing the participation of patients in the clinical encounter, such as providing practitioners with a note from patients about their concerns beforehand, showed promise, as did more complex programs providing specific information about disease and attention to emotion. Apparently similar interventions varied in effectiveness across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Successful interactions between patients and their practitioners lie at the heart of medicine, yet there are few rigorous trials of well-specified interventions to inform best practice. Trial evidence suggests that a range of approaches can achieve changes in this interaction, and some show promise in improving patients' health. To advance knowledge further, we need to replicate promising studies using rigorous methods. These should include explicit theoretical frameworks designed to link effects on key communication and interaction characteristics through to effects on health outcomes.

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 · 10.1370/afm.142

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Street RL Jr, Voigt B, Geyer C Jr, Manning T, Swanson GP. Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer. 1995;76:2275-2285.
  2. Smith RC, Lyles JS, Mettler J, et al. The effectiveness of intensive train- ing for residents in interviewing. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:118-126.
  3. Thom DH, Bloch DA, Segal E. An intervention to increase patients' trust in their physicians. Acad Med. 1999;74:195-198.
  4. Maly RC, Bourque L, Engelhardt R. A randomized controlled trial of facilitating information giving to patients with chronic medical condi- tions. J Fam Pract. 2001;48:356-363.
  5. Starfi eld B. Patient-Practitoner Interactions. Primary Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1998:176.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Griffin, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Griffin, S. J.
Venue
The Annals of Family Medicine
Published
2004-11-01
Volume
2
Issue
6
Pages
595-608
ISSN
  • 1544-1709 (ISSN-L)
  • 1544-1717
OpenAlex
W2095914662
Cited by
578
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 47
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Annals of Family Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
patient-practitioner interaction, patient-provider communication, health outcomes, primary care, secondary care, intervention taxonomy, theoretical framework, attention to emotion, trial quality
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Quality of Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

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