↓ Skip to main content

The Evaluation of Physicians’ Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Family Medicine, July 2018
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 (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
8 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
68 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
40 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
The Evaluation of Physicians’ Communication Skills From Multiple Perspectives
Published in
Annals of Family Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1370/afm.2241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenni Burt, Gary Abel, Marc N. Elliott, Natasha Elmore, Jennifer Newbould, Antoinette Davey, Nadia Llanwarne, Inocencio Maramba, Charlotte Paddison, John Campbell, Martin Roland

Abstract

To examine how family physicians', patients', and trained clinical raters' assessments of physician-patient communication compare by analysis of individual appointments. Analysis of survey data from patients attending face-to-face appointments with 45 family physicians at 13 practices in England. Immediately post-appointment, patients and physicians independently completed a questionnaire including 7 items assessing communication quality. A sample of videotaped appointments was assessed by trained clinical raters, using the same 7 communication items. Patient, physician, and rater communication scores were compared using correlation coefficients. Included were 503 physician-patient pairs; of those, 55 appointments were also evaluated by trained clinical raters. Physicians scored themselves, on average, lower than patients (mean physician score 74.5; mean patient score 94.4); 63.4% (319) of patient-reported scores were the maximum of 100. The mean of rater scores from 55 appointments was 57.3. There was a near-zero correlation coefficient between physician-reported and patient-reported communication scores (0.009, P = .854), and between physician-reported and trained rater-reported communication scores (-0.006, P = .69). There was a moderate and statistically significant association, however, between patient and trained-rater scores (0.35, P = .042). The lack of correlation between physician scores and those of others indicates that physicians' perceptions of good communication during their appointments may differ from those of external peer raters and patients. Physicians may not be aware of how patients experience their communication practices; peer assessment of communication skills is an important approach in identifying areas for improvement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 68 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 40 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor 4 10%
Other 4 10%
Researcher 4 10%
Student > Master 4 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 12 30%
Unknown 8 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 9 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 108. 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 10 August 2019.
All research outputs
#200,670
of 16,087,753 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Family Medicine
#86
of 1,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,729
of 277,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Family Medicine
#4
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,087,753 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,381 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 277,491 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.