ArticleBMC health services research2025
Expert recommendations on sharing medical information with patients: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSharing medical information with patients is essential for patient-centered care, yet empirical research to guide information sharing in clinical practice is inconsistent and scattered across disciplines. Clinicians rarely use established models for sharing information, and patients inconsistently understand and remember the information shared.
objectiveExplore experts' views on the task of sharing information.
designQualitative study using semi-structured interviews and reflexive thematic analysis.
participantsWe recruited fifteen expert clinical communication teachers from six countries, using the snowball method. APPROACH: Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed by authors with both clinical, teaching and research experience, using reflexive thematic analysis.
resultsWe conceived four themes addressing the task of sharing information. The overarching theme was: (1) Sharing information with patients should be a dialogue, not a lecture. Further, to improve how they share information with patients, clinicians might want to: (2) Help the patient process emotions; (3) Explore the patient's knowledge and perspective; (4) Tailor and structure the information. Each theme included common challenges and solutions for clinicians.
conclusionsThe findings align with and expand current models for communicating with patients. The themes integrate knowledge from different disciplines, such as psychology, medicine and communication science. The findings provide support for the role of information sharing in patient-centered care and shared decision making. The findings can guide clinicians in the task of sharing information with patients and shape curriculum and training development.
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.