Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40357301›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025

The dialogue dilemma: the role of patient-clinician communication for low-income people who smoke and manage multiple conditions.

Monique T Cano, Michael R Lindstrom, Ricardo F Muñoz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Monique T CanoDepartment of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, United States.
Michael R LindstromSchool of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX, United States.
Ricardo F MuñozInstitute for International Internet Interventions for Health (i4Health), Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Adults from low-income backgrounds who smoke face significant health disparities related to tobacco use, often at disproportionately high rates. These individuals are more likely to endure multiple mental and physical (MP) health conditions, which can negatively influence their self-rated health (SRH). The quality and effectiveness of patient-clinician communication (PCC) can influence how patients perceive their own health. Understanding how PCC influences SRH among low-income adults who smoke and suffer from multiple MP conditions is essential for clinical care as multimorbidity is on the rise. This study examines how PCC may influence the health perceptions of low-income adults who smoke and have varying MP conditions. Methods: Low-income adults who smoke ( Results: The results revealed that PCC moderated the association between MP conditions ( Conclusion: The intersection of tobacco-related disparities among low-income adults who smoke and manage multiple MP conditions is complex. Among this vulnerable population, poor and average PCC adversely influences how patients perceive their own health. Results highlight the importance of quality and effective communication between patients and providers. A culturally informed patient-centered approach to care may improve PCC as it encourages collaborative, individually tailored treatment that empowers patients to actively participate in their own health care.

Indexed as

culturally informed carehealth disparitieslow-income adultsmultimorbiditypatient-centered carepatient-clinician communicationself-rated healthtobacco use

Identifiers

PMID40357301
PMCPMC12066447

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.