ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Impact of face masks on empathy and communication in head and neck cancer patients: a case-control study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Psychosocial experiences of cancer patients across the COVID-19 era: Lasting implications for oncology.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the widespread use of face masks in medical settings. In the treatment of patients with head and neck tumors or other malignancies, where non-verbal communication and emotional expression are critical, face masks may potentially impair the physician-patient relationship. This study aimed to assess the impact of face masks on perceived empathy and the quality of physician-patient communication in this patient cohort. Methods: A prospective case-control study as part of the postoperative follow-up consultations was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Medical Center Goettingen, utilizing the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure. Patients were divided into two groups: in the case group, clinicians wore face masks throughout the entire consultation, while in the control group, masks were worn only during the clinical examination. The primary outcome was the difference in CARE scores, reflecting the perceived empathy of the clinician. Results: No significant difference in mean CARE scores was observed between the two groups (p=0.454), indicating that wearing a face mask did not significantly affect patients' perception of clinician empathy. However, a significant positive correlation was found between patients' familiarity with the clinician and higher CARE scores (p=0.003). Other variables, such as patient health status and consultation duration, did not significantly influence CARE scores. Conclusion: Wearing face masks does not significantly impair perceived empathy in the context of physician-patient communication. Familiarity with the clinician emerged as a key factor in enhancing the quality of the interaction. These findings underscore the importance of fostering long-term, trust-based physician-patient relationships, particularly during periods of pandemic-related protective measures such as mask mandates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.