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 accessAbstract
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.
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
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,736
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal For Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,483
Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review.
(1995) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 4,085
Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature
Mead, N., & Bower, P. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00098-8 · Cited by 2,976
The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes.
Stewart, M., Brown, J. B., DONNER, A. P., McWhinney, I. R., Oates, J., Weston, W. W., & Jordan, J. (2000) · PubMed · Cited by 2,508
Physician Communication and Patient Adherence to Treatment: A Meta-Analysis
Haskard Zolnierek, K. B., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2009) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e31819a5acc · Cited by 2,489
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
Assessing the Effects of Physician-Patient Interactions on the Outcomes of Chronic Disease
Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010 · Cited by 2,043
Leavitt, M. (2001) · PubMed · Cited by 1,862
The Next GME Accreditation System — Rationale and Benefits
Nasca, T. J., Philibert, I., Brigham, T., & Flynn, T. C. (2012) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsr1200117 · Cited by 1,611
Cited by
Towards conversational diagnostic artificial intelligence
Tu, T., Schaekermann, M., Palepu, A., Saab, K., Freyberg, J., Tanno, R., Wang, A., Li, B., Amin, M., Cheng, Y., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08866-7 · Cited by 366
“No significant differences in ratings were detected for one of the patient-centred communication best practice (PCCBP) axes 19 , ‘Acknowledging mistakes’ ( N = 46).”
InfluentialTeach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts
Talevski, J., Wong Shee, A., Rasmussen, B., Kemp, G., & Beauchamp, A. (2020) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0231350 · Cited by 363
Sallam, M., Salim, N., Barakat, M., & Al-Tammemi, A. (2023) · Narra J · doi:10.52225/narra.v3i1.103 · Cited by 331
Irrational Use of Medicines—A Summary of Key Concepts
Ofori-Asenso, R., & Agyeman, A. (2016) · Pharmacy · doi:10.3390/pharmacy4040035 · Cited by 287
Kyaw, B. M., Posadzki, P., Paddock, S., Car, J., Campbell, J., & Tudor Car, L. (2019) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/12967 · Cited by 257
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.