Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 25, 2025
Author Spotlight: Evaluating Clinicians' Adoption of Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Cannulation Through Simulation Training
Published on: August 9, 2024
Physicians' and Patients' Interruptions in Clinical Practice: A Quantitative Analysis
Ilona Plug1, Sandra van Dulmen2,3,4, Wyke Stommel5
1Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands ilona.plug@ru.nl.
This study looked at how often and in what ways doctors and patients interrupt each other during medical visits. Researchers observed 84 real-life interactions between 17 doctors and 84 patients with common physical symptoms. They categorized each interruption as either cooperative or intrusive. Out of 2,405 interruptions, 82.9% were cooperative. Men doctors were more likely to make intrusive interruptions than women doctors. Men patients were less likely to make intrusive interruptions than women patients. Interruptions were more likely to be intrusive during the part of the visit when patients described their symptoms. However, during the part when doctors discussed diagnosis or treatment, their interruptions were less intrusive. The authors suggest that most interruptions may actually help the conversation and are not always disruptive. The study shows that the type of interruption depends on the person's role, gender, and the stage of the visit.
Area of Science:
- Primary care communication research
- Healthcare gender dynamics in clinical settings
Background:
Understanding communication patterns in clinical settings is essential for improving patient-physician interactions. Prior research has suggested that interruptions may play a role in shaping these interactions, but few studies have systematically analyzed their frequency and nature. Established knowledge indicates that communication styles can influence patient satisfaction and diagnostic accuracy. However, the specific types of interruptions and their contextual factors remain unclear. No prior work had resolved how gender and consultation phases might influence interruption behavior. This gap motivated the need for a quantitative analysis of interruptions in primary care consultations. Researchers have shown that communication dynamics vary across genders and professional roles. Yet, the mechanisms behind cooperative versus intrusive interruptions remain unexplored. This study contributes by examining how interruptions are distributed and what factors predict their occurrence.
Purpose Of The Study:
This study aimed to investigate the frequency and characteristics of interruptions during primary care consultations. The specific problem addressed is the lack of systematic analysis on how physicians and patients interrupt each other. The motivation stems from the potential impact of interruptions on communication quality and patient participation. Researchers sought to determine whether interruptions are cooperative or intrusive and how they vary by role, gender, and consultation phase. The study focused on 84 natural interactions involving 17 physicians and 84 patients. The goal was to quantify interruption types and identify predictive factors. By analyzing these interactions, the authors aimed to shed light on communication patterns in clinical settings. This approach allows for a deeper understanding of how interruptions may affect patient-physician dynamics.
Main Methods:
The study involved coding and quantitatively analyzing interruptions in 84 clinical interactions. Researchers categorized interruptions as either cooperative or intrusive. Data were collected from primary care physicians and patients discussing common somatic symptoms. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to analyze the data. Predictors included role (physician vs. patient), gender, and consultation phase. Interruptions were observed across 2,405 instances in total. The analysis focused on identifying patterns in interruption types and their influencing factors. This method allowed for a systematic examination of how interruptions vary across different contexts.
Main Results:
Of the 2,405 interruptions observed, 82.9% were classified as cooperative. Physicians' intrusive interruptions were more likely when the physician was male (β = 0.43; OR = 1.54). In contrast, male patients were less likely to make intrusive interruptions than female patients (β = -0.35; OR = 0.70). Patients' interruptions were more intrusive during the problem presentation phase (β = 0.71; OR = 2.03). In the diagnosis and treatment phase, physicians' interruptions were less intrusive (β = -0.17; OR = 0.85). These findings suggest that interruptions are not always disruptive. The likelihood of intrusive interruptions depends on multiple factors. Gender and consultation phase appear to influence the nature of interruptions.
Conclusions:
The authors suggest that most interruptions in clinical interactions are cooperative and may enhance communication. The nature of interruptions is influenced by the roles of participants, their gender, and the consultation phase. These findings do not imply that all interruptions are beneficial, but they may not be as intrusive as previously assumed. The study does not claim that interruptions are essential to effective communication. Instead, it proposes that interruptions vary in type and context. The authors do not generalize these findings to all clinical settings. They emphasize the interplay between role, gender, and consultation phase in shaping interruption behavior. These conclusions are based on the observed data and do not suggest future research directions.
Frequently Asked Questions
The study found that 82.9% of 2,405 observed interruptions were cooperative, not intrusive.
Male physicians were more likely to make intrusive interruptions (OR = 1.54), while male patients were less likely (OR = 0.70).
During problem presentation, patient interruptions were 2.03 times more likely to be intrusive than physicians' (OR = 2.03).
A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to assess the influence of role, gender, and consultation phase.
The study observed 2,405 interruptions across 84 clinical interactions.
The authors suggest that most interruptions may enhance interaction and are not always intrusive.
More Related Videos
06:28E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
06:05The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Related Concept Videos
01:26Methods of Documentation II: POMR
01:21Barriers to Effective Communication II
Cultural barriers:
Differences in values, beliefs, religion, knowledge, and tradition can significantly impact communication. Awareness of nonverbal cues is critical, especially when conversing with a patient from a different culture. What appears appropriate in one culture may be inappropriate in another.
Semantic barriers:
As a result of their tendency to use...
01:18Introduction To Survival Analysis
The primary goal of survival analysis is to estimate survival time—the time...
01:12Analysis of Population Pharmacokinetic Data
01:21Methods of Documentation III: PIE
01:28Special considerations while measuring blood pressure
Monitoring Both Arms:
Monitoring BP in both arms during the initial assessment is advisable, as the systolic value may differ by five to ten mm Hg between arms. For subsequent BP assessments, use the arm with the higher reading.