SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Educative accompaniment. Scoping review of academic publications.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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: Educational accompaniment (EA) has gained increasing relevance in recent years, particularly in Spain, with applications across education, healthcare, and social domains. Despite its growing presence, there is no comprehensive synthesis of the academic literature on EA. This review aims to identify and analyze the main models, definitions, and benefits associated with EA. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using three databases: Web of Science, Scopus, and nDICEs-CSIC. The search focused exclusively on the term educational accompaniment, which narrowed the scope but ensured conceptual specificity. Inclusion criteria targeted studies that explicitly addressed EA, excluding those using the term in a colloquial or unrelated sense. A total of 28 studies were selected and analyzed following PRISMA guidelines. Results: The review identified four distinct paradigms of EA: psychosocial, personalist, socio-educational, and competency-based. Each model is grounded in specific theoretical and methodological frameworks. An integrated definition of EA is proposed as an intentional educational action through which one person enlightens and supports another in their integral development, facilitating their autonomy, maturity, and realization of a fulfilling life. Key findings highlight the importance of the quality of the accompaniment relationship, sustained engagement, practitioner training, and stakeholder coordination. Reported benefits include enhanced learner autonomy, holistic development, and improved employability. Discussion: EA emerges as a salient and evolving discipline with strong theoretical foundations and practical relevance. It is increasingly recognized as a valuable pedagogical approach in diverse fields, including education, healthcare, and social services, where its relational and formative nature supports autonomy, personal growth, and holistic development.
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.