Observational studyPloS one2024
What matters to you? An observational field study of patient and care provider expectations for health care relationships.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of the community health system innovation project in three low- and middle-income countries: COHESION-I study protocol.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Patient Expectations: A Qualitative Study on What Patients Want From Their Healthcare Providers to Support Them in Healthy Aging.American journal of lifestyle medicine · 2025Article
- Observational
- Burnout in modern-day health care: Where are we, and how can we markedly reduce it? A meta-narrative review from the EUREKA* project.Health care management reviewReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Therapeutic connections (TC) between patients and providers are foundational to patient-centered care, which is co-produced between patients and care providers. This necessitates that we understand what patients expect from TCs, the extent to which providers know what patients expect, and what providers expect. The purpose of this study was to examine nine TC dimensions and determine which are most important to patients, which dimensions providers believe are most important to patients, and which are most important to providers. An online survey of patients (n = 388) and care providers (n = 433) was conducted in the USA in March 2021. Respondents rated the extent to which the nine TC dimensions were important to them, followed by open-ended questions to expand upon what matters. The quantitative responses were rank-ordered and rankings were compared across groups. All groups ranked "having the patient's best interest in mind no matter what" as the top expectation. Patients also ranked "caring commitment" and being "on the same page" as highly important. Providers were relatively accurate in ranking what they believed was most important to patients. Respondents affirmed the TC dimensions in the qualitative results, adding nuance and context, such as patients feeling "heard" and noting providers that go "above and beyond." Providers ranked dimensions differently for themselves, prioritizing "full presence" and "emotional support" of patients. This study is among the first to examine expectations for TC. TC could play an explanatory role in understanding variation in patient experience ratings and other outcomes.
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.