Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 577

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

“Best Practice” for Patient-Centered Communication: A Narrative Review

Open access
King, Ann, Hoppe, Ruth B.·2013·Journal of Graduate Medical Education

Abstract

Background: Communicating with patients has long been identified as an important physician competency. More recently, there is a growing consensus regarding the components that define physician-patient communication. There continues to be emphasis on both the need to teach and to assess the communication skills of physicians. Objective: This narrative review aims to summarize the work that has been conducted in physician-patient communication that supports the efficacy of good communications skills. This work may also help to define the physician-patient communication skills that need to be taught and assessed. Results: A review of the literature shows it contains impressive evidence supporting positive associations between physician communication behaviors and positive patient outcomes, such as patient recall, patient understanding, and patient adherence to therapy. There is a consensus about what constitutes “best practice” for physician communication in medical encounters: (1) fostering the relationship, (2) gathering information, (3) providing information, (4) making decisions, (5) responding to emotions, and (6) enabling disease- and treatment-related behavior. Conclusions: Evidence supports the importance of communication skills as a dimension of physician competence. Effort to enhance teaching of communication skills to medical trainees likely will require significant changes in instruction at undergraduate and graduate levels, as well as changes in assessing the developing communication skills of physicians. An added critical dimension is faculty understanding of the importance of communication skills, and their commitment to helping trainees develop those skills.

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 · 10.4300/jgme-d-13-00072.1

Cites

97 of 97 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 97 references

Cited by

See all 577

Metadata

Authors
King, A., & Hoppe, R. B.
Venue
Journal of Graduate Medical Education
Published
2013-09
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
385-393
ISSN
  • 1949-8349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1949-8357
OpenAlex
W2027952435
Cited by
577
References
97
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: “Best Practice” for Patient-Centered Communication: A Narrative Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00072.1
The paper
King, A., & Hoppe, R. B. (2013). “Best Practice” for Patient-Centered Communication: A Narrative Review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.4300/jgme-d-13-00072.1

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.