SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2026
Towards a Quality Care Climate Perspective: A Systematic Review of Associations Among Patient Experience, Patient Outcomes, and Organisational Climate Factors in Hospitals.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective (study question): The main purpose of this systematic review was to conduct a qualitative synthesis of quantitative studies among patient experience, patient outcomes, and organisational climate factors. The review sought to answer the following research questions: (i) What are the main directions, dominant methods, and theories on the associations among these concepts? (ii) What theoretical propositions can be made? Data sources/study setting (w/hospital/institution setting anonymised): The study involved a search for literature in PubMed, PsychINFO, Medline, CINAHL, Academic Search Premier, Scopus, and Web of Science between 2007 and 2022 with the guidance of a librarian. The search was limited to English language and to human adult inpatients. STUDY
designThis study primarily employed a systematic review method, following the guidelines in the PRISMA statement. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION
methodsArticles were screened and excluded first on title and abstract, and then on fulltexts. Quality assessments were done on remaining articles using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tool for observational, cohort and cross-sectional studies. Data was extracted from articles that met the inclusion criteria and passed the checks. PRINCIPAL
findingsThe search identified 11,571 records that were checked for duplications. After removing duplicates and applying the eligibility criteria, a final list of 220 articles were included for the qualitative synthesis. Results showed that the relationships among the concepts were more conclusive and generally positive rather than negative, especially between patient experience and patient outcomes. The review, however, showed areas that required more attention such as an encompassing quality-oriented care climate theory, validation of patient-reported instruments, and longitudinal studies linking subjective patient outcomes to objective patient outcomes.
conclusionsThe review shows that conclusions can be drawn on the relationships among the variables, indicating that favourable factors in the hospitals, as perceived by patients, have positive implications for patient experiences and their outcomes. Based on this, an argument for an encompassing framework on quality care climate from the patients' perspectives was made to enhance understanding of these relationships. LIMITATIONS: Among others, this review is limited by the search restriction to quantitative studies or studies that employed mainly quantitative tools to assess associations or changes.
fundingThis study received no external funding. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ID- CRD42021291787.
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.