Improving How Clinicians Communicate With Patients: An Integrative Review and Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective communication is crucial in all service contexts, but especially in clinical healthcare, given its high (sometimes life-or-death) stakes. Fine-tuned messaging and personalization are vital to improving patients’ service experiences, their understanding of and adherence to treatment and therapy, and their physical and mental health. This article aims to guide clinicians specifically, and other service providers more generally, in their communication practices, so that they ultimately improve the quality of service they deliver to patients each day. It presents a comprehensive, integrative review and develops a framework for how clinicians communicate with patients by synthesizing findings from presently disconnected literatures in services, psychology, marketing, communications, and medicine. The framework, which elucidates the communication channels (verbal, nonverbal, and listening) clinicians use to convey meaning to patients, can be adapted to other service contexts, especially professional services. An agenda for future research and implications for improving service provider communications are included.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it