Cited by 143Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareEthics and Legal Issues in Pediatric HealthcareChildren's Rights and Participation

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Triadic communication in the primary care paediatric consultation: a review of the literature

Open access
Cahill, Patricia, Papageorgiou, Alexia·2007·British Journal of General Practice

Abstract

Background Children aged 6-12 years are usually seen in primary care with an adult carer. It is a government and professional priority for doctors to try and involve these children in their medical consultations. Aim To ascertain the evidence available on the amount and type of involvement that children in the 6-12 year age group have in their primary care consultations when the consultation was held with a child, a GP, and an adult. Design of the study Literature review. Method Data sources included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ERIC, The Cochrane library, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Wilson's Social Science abstracts, hand searching for references, and contact with authors. Results Twenty-one studies were selected for inclusion in the study. Children were found to have little quantitative involvement in their own consultations. They may take part during information gathering but are unlikely to participate in the treatment planning and discussion parts of the consultation. Conclusion Children in the 6-12 year age group have little meaningful involvement in their consultations.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3399/096016407782317892

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Cahill, P., & Papageorgiou, A.
Affiliations
University of East Anglia (GB)
Venue
British Journal of General Practice
Published
2007-11-01
Volume
57
Issue
544
Pages
904-911
ISSN
  • 0960-1643 (ISSN-L)
  • 1478-5242
OpenAlex
W2047411811
Cited by
143
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 4
FWCI
7.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of General Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Children's Rights and Participation
Keywords
triadic communication, pediatric consultation, primary care, children aged 6-12, physician-patient communication, information gathering, treatment planning, parental involvement, child-centered care
MeSH terms
Child, Communication, Family Practice, Humans, Patient Participation, Physician-Patient Relations

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