ReviewInternational journal of clinical practice2015
Communication in healthcare: a narrative review of the literature and practical recommendations.
Review in International journal of clinical practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 199 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
199 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Acute service and disability service providers experiences of joint working to improve health care experiences of people with an intellectual disability compared to non-joint working: A mixed-method systematic review.Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID · 2026Pooled it
- Causes of medication errors in community pharmacies: A meta-ethnography and systematic review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Ethnic inequalities in palliative care prescribing in high income countries - a rapid systematic review.BMC palliative care · 2025Pooled it
- What helps or hinders the communication of poor prognosis between secondary and primary care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Perspectives of healthcare providers on osteoporosis, falls and fracture risk: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies.Archives of osteoporosis · 2024Pooled it
- Education on medically unexplained symptoms: a systematic review with a focus on cultural diversity and migrants.European journal of medical research · 2023Pooled it
- Challenges in the Medical and Psychosocial Care of the Paediatric Refugee-A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Access to preventive sexual and reproductive health care for women from refugee-like backgrounds: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2022Pooled it
- Prevalence of adverse drug reactions in the primary care setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of hearing loss on clinical interactions between older adults and health professionals: a systematic review.European geriatric medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Investigating Learning Effects Through the Implementation of Teledermatology Consultations Among General Practitioners in Germany: Mixed Methods Process Evaluation.JMIR medical education · 2025Trial
- Implementation and Evaluation of a mHealth-Based Community Health Worker Feedback Loop for Hispanics with and at Risk for Diabetes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Trial
- A Human-Centered Framework to Capture the Holistic Pain Story in Chronic Pain: Protocol for a Multicenter Observational Feasibility Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Observational
- Large language models and artificial intelligence for generating, simplifying, and enhancing outpatient clinic letters: A systematic review.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Physician Emotion and Self-disclosure in Serious Illness Conversations: Impact on Trust, Compassion, Professionalism and Comfort.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Transforming challenging telephone conversations - investigating the effectiveness of an adapted ISBAR tool for delivering bad news.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Applications, Challenges, and Future Directions of Large Language Models in Health Care Communication: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Interorganisational Patient Safety Incident Reports: An Analytical Perspective.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2026Article
- "Kind of Feel Like the Lone Outpost": A Qualitative Exploration of Barriers to Professional Development for Rural Primary Care Providers at the Veterans Health Administration.The Journal of rural health : official journal of the American Rural Health Association and the National Rural Health Care Association · 2026Article
139 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesEffective and efficient communication is crucial in healthcare. Written communication remains the most prevalent form of communication between specialised and primary care. We aimed at reviewing the literature on the quality of written communication, the impact of communication inefficiencies and recommendations to improve written communication in healthcare.
designNarrative literature review.
methodsA search was carried out on the databases PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library by means of the (MeSH)terms 'communication', 'primary health care', 'correspondence', 'patient safety', 'patient handoff' and 'continuity of patient care'. Reviewers screened 4609 records and 462 full texts were checked according following inclusion criteria: (1) publication between January 1985 and March 2014, (2) availability as full text in English, (3) categorisation as original research, reviews, meta-analyses or letters to the editor.
resultsA total of 69 articles were included in this review. It was found that poor communication can lead to various negative outcomes: discontinuity of care, compromise of patient safety, patient dissatisfaction and inefficient use of valuable resources, both in unnecessary investigations and physician worktime as well as economic consequences.
conclusionThere is room for improvement of both content and timeliness of written communication. The delineation of ownership of the communication process should be clear. Peer review, process indicators and follow-up tools are required to measure the impact of quality improvement initiatives. Communication between caregivers should feature more prominently in graduate and postgraduate training, to become engraved as an essential skill and quality characteristic of each caregiver.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.