Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Annals of Family Medicine
  • My alerts
Annals of Family Medicine

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Early Access
    • Multimedia
    • Podcast
    • Collections
    • Past Issues
    • Articles by Subject
    • Articles by Type
    • Supplements
    • Plain Language Summaries
    • Calls for Papers
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Reviewers
    • Job Seekers
    • Media
  • About
    • Annals of Family Medicine
    • Editorial Staff & Boards
    • Sponsoring Organizations
    • Copyrights & Permissions
    • Announcements
  • Engage
    • Engage
    • e-Letters (Comments)
    • Subscribe
    • Podcast
    • E-mail Alerts
    • Journal Club
    • RSS
    • Annals Forum (Archive)
  • Contact
    • Contact Us
  • Careers
  • Follow annalsfm on Twitter
  • Visit annalsfm on Facebook
Research ArticleOriginal Research

Clinician Response to Patient Emotion: Impact on Subsequent Communication and Visit Length

Mary Catherine Beach, Jenny Park, Dingfen Han, Christopher Evans, Richard D. Moore and Somnath Saha
The Annals of Family Medicine November 2021, 19 (6) 515-520; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2740
Mary Catherine Beach
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
2Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
3Department of Health, Behavior & Society, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
4Welch Center for Prevention, Epidemiology and Clinical Research, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mcbeach@jhmi.edu
Jenny Park
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dingfen Han
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
PhD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher Evans
5Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard D. Moore
1Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
MD, MHS
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Somnath Saha
5Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
6Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon
MD, MPH
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Published eLetters

If you would like to comment on this article, click on Submit a Response to This article, below. We welcome your input.

Submit a Response to This Article
Compose eLetter

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

Jump to comment:

  • When to dig and Where to dig
    Koki Kato
    Published on: 12 November 2021
  • Published on: (12 November 2021)
    Page navigation anchor for When to dig and Where to dig
    When to dig and Where to dig
    • Koki Kato, GP, Madoka Family Clinic; Academic & Research Centre, Hokkaido Centre for Family Medicine

    I read the article of Beach et al. regarding clinician response to patient emotion with great interest. They demonstrated that providing space for patients' elaboration on the feeling increased consultation time while explicitly focusing on patient affect decreased it.

    According to Schein (1), providing space for conversation using "humble inquiry" is vital when exploring ways to help. It is "the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person." It is similar to inductive foraging (2) in terms of not directly digging a specific theme that a questioner wants to know beforehand. On the other hand, the communication actively focusing on emotions may be classified into a "diagnostic inquiry", which can be helpful if the direction is correct but can also be unsuccessful. For example, speaking emotion is sometimes embarrassing or suffering, and the responder may not want to be asked. As a result, it may threaten the patient-physician relationship or patients' well-being.

    In light of the above, family physicians need expertise in dealing with the two uncertainties in communication in a consultation: when to dig and where to dig.

    References
    1. Schein EH. Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. Berrett-Koehler; 2011.
    2. Donner-Banzhoff N. Solving...

    Show More

    I read the article of Beach et al. regarding clinician response to patient emotion with great interest. They demonstrated that providing space for patients' elaboration on the feeling increased consultation time while explicitly focusing on patient affect decreased it.

    According to Schein (1), providing space for conversation using "humble inquiry" is vital when exploring ways to help. It is "the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person." It is similar to inductive foraging (2) in terms of not directly digging a specific theme that a questioner wants to know beforehand. On the other hand, the communication actively focusing on emotions may be classified into a "diagnostic inquiry", which can be helpful if the direction is correct but can also be unsuccessful. For example, speaking emotion is sometimes embarrassing or suffering, and the responder may not want to be asked. As a result, it may threaten the patient-physician relationship or patients' well-being.

    In light of the above, family physicians need expertise in dealing with the two uncertainties in communication in a consultation: when to dig and where to dig.

    References
    1. Schein EH. Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help. Berrett-Koehler; 2011.
    2. Donner-Banzhoff N. Solving the Diagnostic Challenge: A Patient-Centered Approach. Ann Fam Med. 2018;16(4):353-358. doi:10.1370/afm.2264

    Show Less
    Competing Interests: None declared.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (6)
The Annals of Family Medicine: 19 (6)
Vol. 19, Issue 6
1 Nov 2021
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
  • Plain language article summaries
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Annals of Family Medicine.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Clinician Response to Patient Emotion: Impact on Subsequent Communication and Visit Length
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Annals of Family Medicine
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Annals of Family Medicine web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
2 + 6 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Clinician Response to Patient Emotion: Impact on Subsequent Communication and Visit Length
Mary Catherine Beach, Jenny Park, Dingfen Han, Christopher Evans, Richard D. Moore, Somnath Saha
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2021, 19 (6) 515-520; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2740

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Get Permissions
Share
Clinician Response to Patient Emotion: Impact on Subsequent Communication and Visit Length
Mary Catherine Beach, Jenny Park, Dingfen Han, Christopher Evans, Richard D. Moore, Somnath Saha
The Annals of Family Medicine Nov 2021, 19 (6) 515-520; DOI: 10.1370/afm.2740
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Discussing poverty within primary care consultations: implications for mental health support
  • SAFE-GOALS: a protocol for goals of care discussions in the intensive care unit
  • Engagement with emotional concerns in general practice: a thematic analysis of GP consultations
  • Pakikisama: Filipino Patient Perspectives on Health Care Access and Utilization
  • Trust and Relationships Remain at the Heart of Primary Care
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Artificial Intelligence Tools for Preconception Cardiomyopathy Screening Among Women of Reproductive Age
  • Family Physicians in Focused Practice in Ontario, Canada: A Population-Level Study of Trends From 1993/1994 Through 2021/2022
  • Seven Opportunities for Artificial Intelligence in Primary Care Electronic Visits: Qualitative Study of Staff and Patient Views
Show more Original Research

Similar Articles

Subjects

  • Methods:
    • Mixed methods
  • Other research types:
    • Health services
  • Core values of primary care:
    • Personalized care
  • Other topics:
    • Communication / decision making

Keywords

  • patient-clinician communication
  • emotions
  • psychological distress
  • empathy
  • primary care
  • office visits
  • time management
  • behavior
  • personalized care
  • practice-based research

Content

  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • Early Access
  • Plain-Language Summaries
  • Multimedia
  • Podcast
  • Articles by Type
  • Articles by Subject
  • Supplements
  • Calls for Papers

Info for

  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • Job Seekers
  • Media

Engage

  • E-mail Alerts
  • e-Letters (Comments)
  • RSS
  • Journal Club
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Subscribe
  • Family Medicine Careers

About

  • About Us
  • Editorial Board & Staff
  • Sponsoring Organizations
  • Copyrights & Permissions
  • Contact Us
  • eLetter/Comments Policy

© 2025 Annals of Family Medicine