Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15576546›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of family medicine

Effect on health-related outcomes of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners: a systematic review of trials.

Simon J Griffin, Ann-Louise Kinmonth, Marijcke W M Veltman, Susan Gillard, Julie Grant, Moira Stewart

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 225 papers, 13 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
225citing papers in PubMed, 13 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02714582 nacompletednot on this map

Patient Participation at the Bedside: Feasibility, Appropriateness, Meaningfulness and Effectiveness of Bedside Shift Reporting. A Matched Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, GhentRan2016 to 2018Enrolled750ConditionsNursing, Bedside Shift Report, Patient ParticipationArmsBedside shift report
NCT07658937 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Improving Sexual and Reproductive Health Communication Between Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Patients and Clinicians: ReSPECT Intervention Proof-of-Concept Testing

TypeinterventionalSponsorConnecticut Children's Medical CenterRan2026 to 2029Enrolled30ConditionsHealth-Related Quality-of-Life, Cancer, Health CommunicationArmsReSPECT
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

225 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

165 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Simon J GriffinGeneral Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Institute of Public Health, University Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 2SR, UK. sjg49@medschl.cam.ac.uk
Ann-Louise Kinmonth
Marijcke W M Veltman
Susan Gillard
Julie Grant
Moira Stewart

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe wanted to identify published randomized trials of interventions to alter the interaction between patients and practitioners, develop taxonomies of the interventions and outcomes, and assess the evidence that such interventions improve patients' health and well-being.

methodsUndertaking a systematic review of randomized trials, we sought trials in primary and secondary care with health-related outcomes, which we found by searching MEDLINE, HealthSTAR, and PsycINFO bibliographic databases through 1999. We also completed one round of manual citation searching.

resultsThirty-five trials were included. Most were set in primary care in North America. Trials were heterogeneous in populations, settings, interventions, and measures. Interventions frequently combined several poorly described elements. Explicit theoretical underpinning was rare, and only one study linked intervention through process to outcome measures. Health outcomes were rarely measured objectively (6 of 35), and only 4 trials with health outcomes met predefined quality criteria. Interventions frequently altered the process of interactions (significantly in 73%, 22 of 30 trials). Principal outcomes favored the intervention group in 74% of trials (26 of 35), reaching statistical significance in 14 (40%). Positive effects on health outcomes achieved statistical significance in 44% of trials (11 of 25); negative effects were uncommon (5 of 25, 20%). Simple approaches to increasing the participation of patients in the clinical encounter, such as providing practitioners with a note from patients about their concerns beforehand, showed promise, as did more complex programs providing specific information about disease and attention to emotion. Apparently similar interventions varied in effectiveness across studies.

conclusionsSuccessful interactions between patients and their practitioners lie at the heart of medicine, yet there are few rigorous trials of well-specified interventions to inform best practice. Trial evidence suggests that a range of approaches can achieve changes in this interaction, and some show promise in improving patients' health. To advance knowledge further, we need to replicate promising studies using rigorous methods. These should include explicit theoretical frameworks designed to link effects on key communication and interaction characteristics through to effects on health outcomes.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CarePhysician-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID15576546
PMCPMC1466743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.