ReviewJournal of caring sciences2025
Exploring the Emergent Concept of Patient Advocacy in Acute and Perioperative Settings: A Scoping Review.
Review in Journal of caring sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Priorities in Perioperative Nursing Across the Lifespan: An e-Delphi Consensus Study.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Cancer Patient Advocacy in the Postoperative Intensive Care Unit: The Experience of Nurses and the Voice of Older Adult Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Negotiating faith in a hospital bed: A qualitative exploration of barriers to prayer (Belitung nursing journal · 2026Article
- Exploring the Conditions and Strategies That Lead Nurses to Advocate for Elderly Cancer Patients in the Perioperative Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Staff shortages following the pandemic and the growing complexity of healthcare require continuous reflection on the part of professionals to improve patient protection efforts in high-pressure environments. This makes it essential to better understand and reinforce the role of patient advocacy in clinical practice. This study aims to map the concept of patient advocacy in nursing, identifying its key attributes, antecedents, and consequences in acute and perioperative settings, contributing to its update and integration into the current healthcare paradigm. Methods: A scoping review, based on Arksey and O'Malley's framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, analyzed studies from 2019 to 2024, across CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. It focused on nursing-related patient advocacy in acute and perioperative settings, excluding non-nursing roles, self-advocacy, and non-research articles. Two independent reviewers independently selected 14 studies using Rayyan®. Results: Key attributes of patient advocacy include safeguarding, effective communication, empowerment, and ethical decision-making support. Facilitating antecedents were professional motivation, training, nurse autonomy, and spiritual care, while hindering factors included ineffective communication, religious/cultural conflicts, and gaps in patients' health literacy. The consequences were mostly positive for patients, such as empowerment and shared decisions, and mixed for nurses, ranging from moral distress and frustration to gratitude and professional satisfaction. Conclusion: This study synthesized the evolving conceptualizations of patient advocacy, addressing post-pandemic challenges and reinforcing the importance of communication, ethical support, and training. It revealed emerging facilitators and previously overlooked barriers, highlighting the need for stronger policies and organizational structures to empower nurses and safeguard patients.
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.