Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39953538›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2025

Touch, communication and affect: a systematic review on the use of touch in healthcare professions.

Raffaele Andrea Buono, Minna Nygren, Nadia Bianchi-Berthouze

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. My bad tooth and why it matters: the neglected value of "Medical Touch".International journal of medical education · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Using gloves wisely: rethinking glove use for health, safety, and environmental sustainability.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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.

Raffaele Andrea BuonoUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, 66-72 Gower St, London, WC1E 6EA, UK. raffaele.buono.18@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-5187-0629
Minna NygrenUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, 66-72 Gower St, London, WC1E 6EA, UK.
Nadia Bianchi-BerthouzeUCL Interaction Centre (UCLIC), University College London, 66-72 Gower St, London, WC1E 6EA, UK.

Funding

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council EP/V000748/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe following systematic review explores the uses and understandings of physical, human-to-human touch engagements in healthcare professions. Given its central importance as both a diagnostic tool and a form of non-verbal communication, this review sought to understand the communicative, social and affective dimensions of touches a part of healthcare, medical or nursing interventions. We attempt to understand how touch communication seems to be structured in the literature, and what tends to be communicated via touch, but also to highlight how the dogmatic distinction between 'instrumental' and 'expressive' touches might have obscured a socio-affective matrix within all touches.

methodsThe synthesis produced was informed by 36 empirical studies involving either direct observation of touch practices, or recollection and discussion with healthcare professionals. The studies were selected from five databases in March 2022. In order to minimise risks of bias, the corpus was screened by two independent reviewers and underwent quality appraisal through the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The final dataset was then analysed, synthesised and presented according to the principles of thematic synthesis.

resultsWe outline how medical touch has been mostly categorised as either 'instrumental' or 'expressive', with only the latter usually described as serving a communicative purpose, despite its lower incidence. We further highlight how touch seems to be operating across a fragile boundary between 'reassuring presence' and 'control', and thus requires carefulness by practitioners, and an understanding of boundaries. Then, we describe how the literature presented gender, cultural background and personal preference as elements influencing the use and perception of touch. Lastly, touch-mediated communication has been presented in some of the literature as a co-produced practice based on bodily, affective and contextual mutual attunement. Such an understanding radically reconfigures the patient as an active co-participant, as well as pushing against the conceptual boundary between instrumental and expressive touch, recognising how to affect cuts across human-made dichotomies.

conclusionWe argue that communication might happen in all instances of touch, while also advocating for empirical work to outline and describe the adaptive physical dynamics (e.g. changes in speed, pressure, temperature) that regulate and alter even medical procedures for communicative purposes. We also discuss the need for social scientists to radically re-conceptualise not only the theoretical scaffolding behind medical touch, but also the methodologies deployed to investigate it-advocating for a renewed attention to bodily and interactional dynamics, particularly through the deployment of (micro-)phenomenological tools, broader ethnographical engagements, or sensors for automatic recognition of bio-signals. LIMITATIONS: The review could be at risk of bias given it sampled only studies written in English, French, Italian, Spanish and Finnish, thus not highlighting potentially different cultural and theoretical perspectives emerging from non-EuroAmerican contexts. Moreover, only 36% of studies included discuss patients' perspectives. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered.

Indexed as

AffectCommunicationHealth PersonnelProfessional-Patient RelationsTouchHumansAdaptive touchAffectAllied health professionsCommunicationExpressive/affective/socialtouchHealthcareInstrumental touchMedicineNursingTouch

Identifiers

PMID39953538
PMCPMC11829577

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.