The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Influence of the Patient-Clinician Relationship on Healthcare Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the patient-clinician relationship has a beneficial effect on either objective or validated subjective healthcare outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the reference sections of previous reviews. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients in which the patient-clinician relationship was systematically manipulated and healthcare outcomes were either objective (e.g., blood pressure) or validated subjective measures (e.g., pain scores). Studies were excluded if the encounter was a routine physical, or a mental health or substance abuse visit; if the outcome was an intermediate outcome such as patient satisfaction or adherence to treatment; if the patient-clinician relationship was manipulated solely by intervening with patients; or if the duration of the clinical encounter was unequal across conditions. RESULTS: Thirteen RCTs met eligibility criteria. Observed effect sizes for the individual studies ranged from d = -.23 to .66. Using a random-effects model, the estimate of the overall effect size was small (d = .11), but statistically significant (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that the patient-clinician relationship has a small, but statistically significant effect on healthcare outcomes. Given that relatively few RCTs met our eligibility criteria, and that the majority of these trials were not specifically designed to test the effect of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes, we conclude with a call for more research on this important topic.
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
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias
Begg, C. B., & Mazumdar, M. (1994) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2533446 · Cited by 16,955
Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of change.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982) · Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice · doi:10.1037/h0088437 · Cited by 3,922
A Nonparametric “Trim and Fill” Method of Accounting for Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.2000.10473905 · Cited by 2,955
Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature
Ong, L. M. L., de Haes, J. C. J. M., Hoos, A. M., & Lammes, F. B. (1995) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)00155-m · Cited by 2,430
THE COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES IN MATCHED SAMPLES
COCHRAN, W. G. (1950) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/37.3-4.256 · Cited by 1,465
Patient participation in deciding breast cancer treatment and subsequent quality of life
Street, R. L., & Voigt, B. (1997) · Medical Decision Making · doi:10.1177/0272989x9701700306 · Cited by 258 · cited 1×
“In fact, most empirical studies examining the effect of the patient-clinician relationship on medical outcomes have been observational in nature [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11] and therefore cannot assess causality.”
BackgroundKinmonth, A.-L., Wareham, N. J., Hardeman, W., Sutton, S., Prevost, A. T., Fanshawe, T., Williams, K. M., Ekelund, U., Spiegelhalter, D., & Griffin, S. J. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60070-7 · Cited by 200
Rutledge, T., & Loh, C. (2004) · Annals of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1207/s15324796abm2702_9 · Cited by 144
Cited by
Communication skills training for physicians improves patient satisfaction
Boissy, A., Windover, A. K., Bokar, D., Karafa, M., Neuendorf, K., Frankel, R. M., Merlino, J., & Rothberg, M. B. (2016) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3597-2 · Cited by 561
Zestcott, C. A., Blair, I. V., & Stone, J. (2016) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430216642029 · Cited by 381
“Perhaps even more so in health settings where clinical encounters can impact patient actions [15 – 19].”
(2021) · doi:10.2196/25856 · Cited by 268
Rief, W., Shedden-Mora, M. C., Laferton, J. A. C., Auer, C., Petrie, K. J., Salzmann, S., Schedlowski, M., & Moosdorf, R. (2017) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0767-3 · Cited by 261
Taylor, B. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2019) · Behavior Analysis in Practice · doi:10.1007/s40617-018-00289-3 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Kelley, J. M., Kraft-Todd, G., Schapira, L., Kossowsky, J., & Riess, H.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-04-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e94207
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1976256107
- Cited by
- 902
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 9.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The Influence of the Patient-Clinician Relationship on Healthcare Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0094207
- The paper
- Kelley, J. M., Kraft-Todd, G., Schapira, L., Kossowsky, J., & Riess, H. (2014). The Influence of the Patient-Clinician Relationship on Healthcare Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094207
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.
