SynthesisHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2023
Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence.
Synthesis in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Peer Support and Community Interventions Targeting Breastfeeding in the UK: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence to Identify Inequities in Participants' Experiences.Maternal & child nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Pooled it
- Influence of external assessment on quality and safety in surgery: a qualitative study of surgeons' perspectives.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWe conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families.
methodsWe searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts.
findingsFifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action.
conclusionOur findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.
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.