Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39334149›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2024

Narrative Medicine: theory, clinical practice and education - a scoping review.

Ilaria Palla, Giuseppe Turchetti, Stefania Polvani

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Bibliometric analysis of oncology communication from 1976 to 2025: a focus on narrative medicine.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Instances of Moral Distress in Medical Education: Recognition and Approaches.Journal of advances in medical education & professionalism · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. [Narrative medicine as an educational tool].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Ilaria PallaInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56127, Italy. ilaria.palla@santannapisa.it.
Giuseppe TurchettiInstitute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna Pisa, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, 56127, Italy.
Stefania PolvaniSIMeN, Società Italiana Medicina Narrativa, Arezzo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe origin of Narrative Medicine dates back to more than 20 years ago at an international level. Narrative Medicine is not an alternative to evidence-based medicine, however these two approaches are integrated. Narrative Medicine is a methodology based on specific communication skills where storytelling is a fundamental tool to acquire, understand and integrate several points of view related to persons involving in the disease and in the healthcare process. Narrative Medicine, henceforth NM, represents a union between disease and illness between the doctor's clinical knowledge and the patient's experience. According to Byron Good, "we cannot have direct access to the experience of others' illness, not even through in-depth investigations: one of the ways in which we can learn more from the experience of others is to listen to the stories of what has happened to other people." Several studies have been published on NM; however, to the best of our knowledge, no scoping review of the literature has been performed.

objectiveThis paper aims to map and synthetize studies on NM according to theory, clinical practice and education/training.

methodThe scoping review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. A search was conducted in PubMed, APA PsycNet and Jstor. Two authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the studies and extracted the data. This review refers to the period from 1998 to 2022.

resultsA total of 843 abstracts were identified of which 274 papers were selected based on the title/abstract. A total of 152 papers in full text were evaluated and 76 were included in the review. Papers were classified according to three issues: ✘ Nineteen studies focused on the definition and concept of NM (Theoretical). ✘ Thirty-eight papers focused on the collection of stories, projects and case reports (Clinical practice). ✘ Nineteen papers focused on the implementation of the Narrative Medicine approach in the education and training of medical doctors (Education and training).

conclusionsThis scoping review presents an overview of the state of the art of the Narrative Medicine. It collect studies performed mainly in Italy and in the United States as these are the countries developing the Narrative Medicine approach in three identified areas, theoretical, clinical practice and education and training. This scoping review will help to promote the power of Narrative Medicine in all three areas supporting the development of methods to evaluate and to measure the Narrative Medicine approach using key performance indicators.

Indexed as

Narrative MedicineHumansNarrationClinical practiceEducationHealthcare professionalIllnessNarrative MedicinePatientPersonalized medicineScoping reviewTraining

Identifiers

PMID39334149
PMCPMC11428871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.