Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37796785›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Health service improvement using positive patient feedback: Systematic scoping review.

Rebecca Lloyd, James Munro, Kerry Evans, Amy Gaskin-Williams, Ada Hui, Mark Pearson, Mike Slade, Yasuhiro Kotera, Giskin Day, Joanne Loughlin-Ridley and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

12 authors.

Rebecca LloydSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
James MunroCare Opinion, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Kerry EvansSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Amy Gaskin-WilliamsNottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Ada HuiSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Mark PearsonSchool of Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Mike SladeSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Yasuhiro KoteraSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0251-0085
Giskin DayNightingale Faculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Joanne Loughlin-RidleySchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Clare EnstonSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.
Stefan Rennick-EgglestoneSchool of Health Sciences, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4187-011X

Funding

Department of HealthWellcome TrustWellcome Trust 212792/Z/18/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings.

methodsEmpirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings.

results68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable.

conclusionFurther interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHealth ServicesFeedbackHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID37796785
PMCPMC10553339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.