Entry
Reader's guide
Entries A-Z
Subject index
Physician–Patient Communication
Interactions between physicians and patients are dyadic encounters in which two people communicate for the purpose of meeting shared goals. Communication between physicians and patients is multifaceted; many factors influence how the interchange progresses and is experienced by each party. Particular characteristics of physician or patient can play a role in physician–patient communication; these include gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, health status, and health literacy. Physician–patient communication involves elements of verbal and nonverbal communication that can influence the patient's ability to adhere to medical recommendations as well as patient satisfaction with medical care.
Physician–patient communication is a form of science communication in that the patient needs to understand both a condition and associated treatment options to participate fully in making an informed decision as well as to be motivated to comply. However, many social and affective (or emotional) factors influence the exchange of information between physician and patient. Great strides have been made in research on factors that affect physician–patient communication and on ways in which to improve this dyadic communication exchange. It is evident that helping patients to be involved in their care is essential to helping patients feel they have informed collaborative choice in treatment decisions and share partnership in the medical care process. Patient involvement can be achieved through humanistic medical care and physicians' use of empathic bedside manner, with a patient-centered approach to communication.
Physician and Patient Characteristics
A plethora of research examines how physician– patient communication is affected by the genders of physician and patient in the interaction. Debra Roter and Judith Hall found that during physician– patient interactions, female patients receive more information and communication from physicians and generally have more overall participatory visits than male patients. Research suggests that female physicians make more positive partnership statements to their patients, ask more questions, engage in more “back-channel” communication (such as nodding or saying “um-hmm” to acknowledge hearing the patient), conduct longer visits, and inquire more about psychosocial issues than do male physicians. Overall, compared with males, female physicians engage more in communication about patients' lives, discuss emotional issues more, and allow patients to discuss a wider range of physical and psychosocial issues. Research also shows that same-sex physician–patient dyads tend to generate differing communicative patterns than opposite sex dyads; in male dyads the physician talks more than the patients, whereas in female dyads the amount of talk by both participants tends to be equal.
Age is also an important factor in physician– patient communication. Older patients (typically 65 years and older) seem to be less participatory than younger patients, but physicians spend more time with them and give them more information, perhaps because generally older patients have more biomedical issues to discuss. Physicians are more responsive nonverbally with middle-aged than older patients and are more egalitarian, less dominant, closer in interpersonal distance, use more shared and “back-channel” communication, and are more willing to adapt to the interactional interchange.
Ethnicity also plays a vital role in physician– patient communication. Race-concordant medical visits tend to last longer and are more satisfying to patients, and both physicians and patients talk at slower rates and are more participatory than in race-discordant visits. Research by Lisa Cooper-Patrick and colleagues has brought attention to disparities in communication between physicians with minority versus nonminority patients. Minority patients consistently rate their physicians as using less participatory decision making, and African American patients receive fewer opportunities for participation than do white patients. Research also indicates that physicians may unintentionally incorporate certain racial biases (that is, racial and ethnic stereotypes) into their interpretation of patients' symptoms, predictions of behavior, and medical treatment decisions. White patients have also been found to receive higher quality care, more empathic statements, more information, and more visit time than nonwhite patients.
...
- Associations and Organizations
- Agricultural Communicators of Tomorrow
- American Association for Public Opinion Research
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- American Medical Association
- American Medical Writers Association
- Association for Communication Excellence
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Council for the Advancement of Science Writing
- Environmental Defense Fund
- ETC Group
- Greenpeace
- International Science Journalism Associations
- National Association of Science Writers
- Physicians for Social Responsibility
- Public Communication of Science and Technology
- Royal Society
- SciDev.Net
- Scientists' Institute for Public Information
- Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence
- Sigma Xi
- Society for Risk Analysis
- Society for Technical Communication
- Society of Environmental Journalists
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- Audiences, Opinions, and Effects
- Active Audiences and Science
- Attentive Public
- Audiences for Science
- Children's Television and Science
- Communicating Science to Children
- Gender Representations of Scientists
- Health Literacy
- Interpretive Communities
- Knowledge Gap Hypothesis
- Popular Science and Formal Education
- Public Understanding of Research
- Public Understanding of Science
- Role Models in Science
- Science Indicators, History of the NSB Project on
- Science Literacy
- Scientist—Journalist Relations
- Surveys
- Technological Literacy
- Trust and Attitudes
- Challenges, Issues, and Controversies
- Abortion
- Alien Abduction
- Alternative Medicine
- Asteroid Impacts
- Bioterrorism
- Climate Change, Communicating
- Cloning
- Colonizing Other Worlds
- Creationism
- Digital Divide
- Drug Advertising
- Food Irradiation
- Intelligent Design in Public Discourse
- Invasive Species
- Maverick Science and Journalism
- NIMBY (“Not In My Back Yard”)
- Nuclear Power
- Nuclear Waste
- Nuclear Weapons
- Pseudoscience
- Scientist—Journalist Conflicts
- Skepticism
- Stem Cell Controversy
- UFOlogy
- Vaccines, Fear of
- Changing Awareness, Opinion, and Behavior
- Alcohol, Risk Communication for
- Anti-Drug Campaigns
- Anti-Smoking Campaigns
- Breast Cancer Communication
- Cancer Prevention and Risk Communication
- Communication Campaigns in Health and Environment
- Computer-Tailored Messages
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Fear Appeals
- Food Safety
- Health Communication and the Internet
- Health Communication, Overview
- Highway Safety
- HIV/AIDS Prevention and Communication
- Resource Mobilization
- Social Marketing
- Critical Influences and Events
- Global and International Aspects
- Africa, Science in
- Australia, Science in
- Canada, Science Communication in
- East Asia, Science Communication in
- Europe, Research System in
- European Space Agency
- India, Science and Science Communication in
- Latin America, Science Communication in
- Mexico, Science Communication in
- National Development, Science and Technology in
- Government Agencies (U.S.)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.
- Department of Agriculture, U.S.
- Department of Energy, U.S.
- Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
- Food and Drug Administration, U.S.
- House Science Committee, U.S.
- National Academies, U.S.
- National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S.
- National Institutes of Health, U.S.
- National Science Foundation, U.S.
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
- Office of Science and Technology Policy, U.S.
- Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.
- Public Health Service, U.S.
- Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
- Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
- Surgeon General, U.S.
- History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science
- Actor-Network Theory
- Deductive Logic
- Inductive Logic
- Invisible College
- Land Grant System, U.S.
- Logical Positivism
- Peer Review
- Postmodernism and Science
- Science and Politics
- Science, Technology, and Society Studies
- Scientific Consensus
- Scientific Ethos
- Scientific Journal, History of
- Scientific Method
- Scientific Societies
- Technological Determinism
- Tenure System
- Two Cultures
- Understanding Expertise
- Visible Scientist
- Important Figures
- Asimov, Isaac
- Attenborough, David
- Carson, Rachel
- Carver, George Washington
- Clarke, Arthur C.
- Crick, Francis
- Darwin, Charles
- Dawkins, Richard
- Dewey, John
- Einstein, Albert
- Feynman, Richard
- Franklin, Benjamin
- Galilei, Galileo
- Gould, Stephen Jay
- Hawking, Stephen
- Kuhn, Thomas
- Latour, Bruno
- McClintock, Barbara
- Mead, Margaret
- Mendel, Gregor
- Merton, Robert K.
- Muir, John
- Nelkin, Dorothy
- Nye, Bill
- Oppenheimer, J. Robert
- Popper, Karl
- Sagan, Carl
- Snow, C. P.
- Teller, Edward
- Venter, J. Craig
- Watson, James D.
- Journal Publications
- Key Cases and Current Trends
- Agricultural Biotechnology
- Alternative Energy, Overview
- Architecture, Sustainable
- Astrobiology
- Astronomy, Public Communication of
- Avian Flu
- Biofuels
- Bioinformatics
- Bovine Somatotropin (BST or BGH)
- Fuel Cell Technology
- Gene
- Gene Therapy
- Holography
- Low-Level Radiation
- Nanotechnology
- Nutrigenomics
- Nutrition and Media
- Obesity Epidemic
- Pandemics, Origins of
- Recombinant DNA
- Reproductive Medicine
- Satellites, Science of
- Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
- Solar Energy
- String Theory
- Sustainability
- Synthetic Biology and Genomics
- Toxicogenomics
- Wind Power
- Law, Policy, Ethics, and Beliefs
- Big Science
- Bioethicists as Sources
- Censorship in Science
- Clean Air Act
- Clean Water Act
- Community “Right to Know”
- Conflicts of Interest in Science
- Embargo System
- Endangered Species Act
- Environmental Impact Statements
- Environmental Justice
- Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues (ELSI)
- Eugenics
- Food Libel Laws
- Gene Patenting
- Institutional Review Board
- Nanotechnology, Regulation of
- Planetary Protection
- Precautionary Principle
- Religion, Science, and Media
- Research Ethics, Overview
- Risk Analysis
- Risks and Benefits
- Science Communication and Indigenous North America
- Social Justice
- Technology Assessment
- Toxic Substances Regulation
- Major Infrastructural Initiatives
- Practices, Strategies, and Tools
- Professional Roles and Careers
- Agricultural Journalism
- Beat Reporting
- Career Paths, Medical Writing/Medical Journalism
- Career Paths, Science/Environmental Journalism
- Crisis Communication
- Disaster Coverage
- Environmental Journalism
- Freelancing
- Government Public Information
- Medical Journalism
- Public Relations and Science
- Scientist—Journalist Relations
- Social and Behavioral Science Reporting
- Technical Communication
- Weather Reporting
- Public Engagement Approaches
- Theory and Research
- Agenda Setting and Science
- Conversation and Science Communication
- Cultivation Theory and Science
- Deficit Model
- Diffusion of Innovations
- Digital Rhetoric and Science
- Discourse Analysis and Science
- Evaluation of Science Communication
- Framing and Priming in Science Communication
- Information Seeking and Processing
- Information Society
- Information Subsidies
- Opinion Leaders and Opinion Leadership
- Optimistic Bias
- Planned Behavior, Theory of
- Psychometric Paradigm
- Rhetoric of Medicine
- Rhetoric of Science
- Social Amplification of Risk Framework
- Social Epistemology
- Spiral of Silence and Science
- Third-Person Effect
- Uncertainty in Science Communication
- Venues and Channels
- Internet, History of
- Media Convergence
- Newspaper Science Pages
- Online Media and the Sciences
- Popular Science, Overview
- Science and the Giant Screen
- Science Centers and Science Museums
- Science Circus
- Science Documentaries
- Science Fiction
- Science in Advertising
- Science in Magazines
- Science in the Movies
- Science in Virtual Worlds
- Science Magazines
- Science on Radio
- Science Shops
- Science Theater
- Scientific Publishing, Overview
- Television Science
- Loading...
Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL
-
Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
-
Read modern, diverse business cases
-
Explore hundreds of books and reference titles
Sage Recommends
We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.
Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches