SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Touch, communication and affect: a systematic review on the use of touch in healthcare professions.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech-touch integration for affective human-robot interaction: a scoping review.Frontiers in robotics and AI · 2026Pooled it
- Immersive virtual reality vs. traditional instruction for short-term learning and follow-up outcomes in the Bobath concept: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Educational and Professional Development Interventions to Strengthen Empathy, Compassion, and Relational Care Among Healthcare Professionals: A Systematic Review.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Review
- When Medicine Gets Irritating: Interactional and Structural Triggers of Uncertainty in Family Medicine Residency Training.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- My bad tooth and why it matters: the neglected value of "Medical Touch".International journal of medical education · 2026Article
- Prediction, pain, and the power of context: toward a contemporary identity for the chiropractic profession.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2026Review
- What really matters to older adults in life and treatment: a qualitative study on the role of connectedness in person-centered care.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Why care resists coding: the moral limits of medical AI.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- The Roles and Purposes of Caring Touch in Health Professional Practice: A Discourse Analysis.Nursing inquiry · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Integration in Multidisciplinary Wound Management: A Scoping Review of Barriers and Facilitators in Clinical Workflows.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Manual Massage Therapy for Neuropathic Pain: Clinical Evidence and Mechanistic Insights.Pain research & management · 2026Review
- Using gloves wisely: rethinking glove use for health, safety, and environmental sustainability.Antimicrobial stewardship & healthcare epidemiology : ASHE · 2026Article
- Article
- Exploring Pregnant Women's Perceptions and Experiences of Adiposity Measurements in Routine Antenatal Care: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.