• Matjaž Zwitter


In medical education, communication is given far less attention, in comparison to diagnostics or treatment. Proper communication is of paramount importance, and weak communication is at the roots of most complaints or accusations of professional misbehavior. Communication should always be bidirectional. When dealing with relatively simple and transient medical problems, communication is often limited to technical instructions. With chronic diseases, communication includes much deeper insight into patient’s personality, family, and social background, and should be understood as a process, rather than as a single encounter. Honest information about the results of diagnostic procedures and understandable presentation of the proposed treatment are essential. In contrast, the prognosis of a disease often remains uncertain and should be communicated with caution: statistical data have limited validity for an individual, and unexpected favorable or unfavorable course of a disease is not rare. In dealing with a serious disease, an experienced and compassionate physician understands that positive motivation of a patient and of his/her family or supporting team is of crucial importance.


Information Compassion Motivation Media and the internet Medical jargon Cultural diversity 

Suggested Reading

  1. Baider L, Surbone A. Cancer and the family: the silent words of truth. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:1269–72. Scholar
  2. Cocanour CS. Informed consent-it’s more than a signature on a piece of paper. Am J Surg. 2017;214:993–7. Scholar
  3. Mallia P. The nature of the doctor-patient relationship: health care principles through the phenomenology of relationships with patients. Berlin: Springer; 2012. ISBN-13: 978-9400749382.Google Scholar
  4. Marini MG. Narrative medicine: bridging the gap between evidence-based care and medical humanities. Berlin: Springer; 2016. ISBN: 978-3-319-22089-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Perez B, Knych SA, Weaver SJ, Liberman A, Abel EM, Oetjen D, Wan TT. Understanding the barriers to physician error reporting and disclosure: a systemic approach to a systemic problem. J Patient Saf. 2014;10:45–51. Scholar
  6. Pugliese OT, Solari JL, Ferreres AR. The extent of surgical patients’ understanding. World J Surg. 2014;38:1605–9. Scholar
  7. Sharif T, Bugo J. The anthropological approach challenges the conventional approach to bioethical dilemmas: a Kenyan Maasai perspective. Afr Health Sci. 2015;15:628–33. Scholar
  8. Surbone A. Cultural aspects of communication in cancer care. Recent Results Cancer Res. 2006;168:91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Surbone A. Truthfulness of more optimistic vs less optimistic messages for patients with advanced Cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1:687–8. Scholar
  10. Surbone A, Baider L. The spiritual dimension of cancer care. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2010;73:228–35. Scholar
  11. Surbone A, Baider L. Are oncologists accountable only to patients or also to their families? An international perspective. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2012:e15–9.
  12. Surbone A, Zwitter M, editors. Communication with the cancer patient. Information and truth. Ann NY Acad Sci, Vol. 809; 1997. ISBN: 0-89766-985-1.Google Scholar
  13. Surbone A, Zwitter M, Rajer M, Stiefel R, editors. New challenges in commnication with cancer patients. Berlin: Springer; 2013. ISBN: 978-1-4614-3368-2.Google Scholar
  14. Zaner RM. A critical examination of ethics in health care and biomedical research: voices and visions. Berlin: Springer; 2015. ISBN-13: 978-3319183312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zill JM, Christalle E, Müller E, Härter M, Dirmaier J, Scholl I. Measurement of physician-patient communication—a systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9:e112637. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matjaž Zwitter
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineUniversity of MariborMariborSlovenia
  2. 2.Institute of OncologyLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations