Examining the relationship between clinician communication and patient participatory behaviors in cardiology encounters.
Hadley W Reid, Victoria Parente, Maya Das Gupta and 6 others
PMID 36137906WHAT IT FOUND
Cardiology visits where clinicians repeated back what patients said and acknowledged feelings had more patient questions, disagreements, and voiced worries.
Each extra reflection averaged 0.3 more participation behaviors; one empathy statement averaged 3.7 more.
Key findings
01Cardiologist reflective statements and empathic statements were significantly associated with greater patient participation in both unadjusted and adjusted models.
02Each additional cardiologist reflective statement was associated with 0.3 more patient participatory behaviors.
03At least one cardiologist empathic statement was associated with an estimated mean 3.7 more patient participatory behaviors.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Cardiologists and patients knew encounters were audio recorded, so their behavior may have been different from usual. The sample included both new and returning patients, but the length of the patient-clinician relationship was not collected. Most cardiologists were male and identified as White or Asian, so results may not apply to other clinician groups. Patients were limited to Black and White English-speaking patients, so results may not apply to other groups. Empathic statements occurred in only 20% of encounters and questions were elicited in 14 encounters, making those behaviors rare and hard to estimate. The study was cross-sectional, so associations do not prove causation.
Declared interests
The authors declared no competing interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that reflective or empathic statements cause more patient participation or better cardiovascular outcomes. The study was cross-sectional, measured only counts of patient behaviors in recorded cardiology visits, and did not test a communication intervention or patient outcomes.