↓ Skip to main content

To self-disclose or not self-disclose? A systematic review of clinical self-disclosure in primary care

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
38 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
To self-disclose or not self-disclose? A systematic review of clinical self-disclosure in primary care
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, August 2015
DOI 10.3399/bjgp15x686533
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruce Arroll, Emily-Charlotte Frances Allen

Abstract

There is a debate in medicine about the value of self-disclosure by the physician as a communication tool. To review the empirical literature of self-disclosure in primary care. Systematic review of empirical literature relating to self-disclosure by primary care physicians (including US paediatricians) from seven electronic databases (MEDLINE(®), Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Social Sciences Citation Index, EBSCOhost, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials [CENTRAL]). Databases were searched for empirical studies on self-disclosure and primary care published from 1946 to 28 November 2014, as well as references from primary studies. The search was extended to include working papers, theses, and dissertations. Nine studies were identified, with response rates ranging from 34% to 100%, as well as several not reported. Self-disclosure occurred in 14-75% of consultations, the most from paediatricians. Self-disclosure had intended benefit; however, one standardised patient study found that 85% of self-disclosures were not useful as reported by the transcript coders. Conflicting data emerged on the self-disclosure outcome. This is the first systematic review of self-disclosure in primary care and medicine. Self-disclosure appears to be common and has the potential to be helpful when used judiciously. Few studies examined the impact on patients, and no studies considered the individual patient perspective nor the content which results in benefit or harm. No evidence was found of any training into how to deal with self-disclosure.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Researcher 9 10%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 19%
Psychology 11 12%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Linguistics 2 2%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 25 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 October 2021.
All research outputs
#1,233,399
of 25,347,980 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#567
of 4,704 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,334
of 273,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#6
of 78 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,347,980 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,704 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,575 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 78 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.