Cited by 52Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinician–Patient Communication: Evidence-Based Recommendations to Guide Practice in Cancer

Open access

Abstract

Goals of Work: To develop recommendations for effective communication between cancer health care providers and patients based on a systematic review of methods of clinician–patient communication that may affect patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care. Materials and Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and evidence-based recommendations were formulated to guide clinician–patient communication in cancer care. A formal external review was conducted to validate the relevance of these recommendations. Main Results: Recommendations for communication in cancer care are presented, based on (1) guidelines from the Australian National Breast Cancer Centre and the Australian National Cancer Control Initiative, (2) an updated systematic review of the research evidence, and (3) a consensus by the Clinician–Patient Communications Working Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care of Cancer Care Ontario. The recommendations were sent to 110 Ontario practitioners for external review: 33 responded (30% response rate). Most of these respondents (87%) agreed with the draft recommendations and approved of their use as a practice guideline (90%). A condensed version of the recommendations, including 10 key points, was also created. Conclusions: There is evidence to support general clinician–patient communication approaches, although the preferences of cancer patients regarding such communication exhibit individual and cultural variability. Recommendations are provided, based on evidence, the consensus of an expert panel, and feedback from a survey of external practitioners. Evidence evaluating the role of decision aids and strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent, although such tools may be of value for some patients.

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 · 10.3747/co.v16i6.432

Cites

9 of 9 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Brouwers MC Browman GP The promise of clinical practice guidelines Sullivan T Evans W Angus H Hudson A Strengthening the Quality of Cancer Services in Ontario Ottawa CHA Press 2003 183 203

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Rodin, G., Zimmermann, C., Mayer, C., Howell, D., Katz, M., Sussman, J., Mackay, J. A., & Brouwers, M.
Affiliations
  • University Health Network (CA)
  • Sudbury Regional Hospital (CA)
  • Southlake Regional Health Center (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (CA)
Corresponding author
Rodin, G.
Venue
Current Oncology
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2009-12-01
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
42-49
ISSN
  • 1198-0052 (ISSN-L)
  • 1718-7729
OpenAlex
W2062938798
Cited by
49
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Oncology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
clinician-patient communication, cancer care, patient distress, communication strategies, clinical guidelines, decision aids, patient preferences, cultural variability, expert consensus

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