Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31919725›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2020

Can Patient-Provider Interpersonal Interventions Achieve the Quadruple Aim of Healthcare? A Systematic Review.

Marie C Haverfield, Aaron Tierney, Rachel Schwartz, Michelle B Bass, Cati Brown-Johnson, Dani L Zionts, Nadia Safaeinili, Meredith Fischer, Jonathan G Shaw, Sonoo Thadaney and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
17.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 116 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A Patient I Was Warned About.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Trust As the Foundation for Informed Decision-Making in Prenatal Genetic Screening and Diagnostic Testing: A Qualitative Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Journal of adolescent and young adult oncology · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Marie C HaverfieldCenter for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA. marie.haverfield@sjsu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2949-0229
Aaron TierneySchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rachel SchwartzCenter for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Michelle B BassCountway Library of Medicine, Harvard, Boston, CA, USA.
Cati Brown-JohnsonDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Dani L ZiontsDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Nadia SafaeiniliDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Meredith FischerDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Jonathan G ShawDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA.
Sonoo ThadaneySchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Gabriella PiccininniSchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Karl A LorenzCenter for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Steven M AschCenter for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Abraham VergheseSchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Donna M ZulmanCenter for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System (152-MPD), Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Stanford University · USVA Palo Alto Health Care System · USBoston Public Library · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHuman connection is at the heart of medical care, but questions remain as to the effectiveness of interpersonal interventions. The purpose of this review was to characterize the associations between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and the quadruple aim outcomes (population health, patient experience, cost, and provider experience).

methodsWe sourced data from PubMed, EMBASE, and PsycInfo (January 1997-August 2017). Selected studies included randomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies that examined the association between patient-provider interpersonal interventions and at least one outcome measure of the quadruple aim. Two abstractors independently extracted information about study design, methods, and quality. We characterized evidence related to the objective of the intervention, type and duration of intervention training, target recipient (provider-only vs. provider-patient dyad), and quadruple aim outcomes.

resultsSeventy-three out of 21,835 studies met the design and outcome inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of research was moderate to high for most included studies; 67% of interventions targeted the provider. Most studies measured impact on patient experience; improvements in experience (e.g., satisfaction, patient-centeredness, reduced unmet needs) often corresponded with a positive impact on other patient health outcomes (e.g., quality of life, depression, adherence). Enhanced interpersonal interactions improved provider well-being, burnout, stress, and confidence in communicating with difficult patients. Roughly a quarter of studies evaluated cost, but the majority reported no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Among studies that measured time in the clinical encounter, intervention effects varied. Interventions with lower demands on provider time and effort were often as effective as those with higher demands. DISCUSSION: Simple, low-demand patient-provider interpersonal interventions may have the potential to improve patient health and patient and provider experience, but there is limited evidence that these interventions influence cost-related outcomes.

Indexed as

Burnout, ProfessionalQuality of LifeDelivery of Health CareHumansinterpersonal interventionspatient–provider communicationquadruple aimsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31919725
PMCPMC7351919
OpenAlexW2999296644

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.