SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Accompaniment in the healthcare sector: a systematic review and concept analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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.
- Conditional Acceptance and the Optimism-Knowledge Gap: A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare in Italy.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accompaniment is increasingly recognized across professional practices as a key relational process, yet its meaning varies widely. Clarifying this concept is essential for theoretical development and practical application in healthcare and related disciplines. This study aimed to analyze the concept of "accompaniment," distinguishing its everyday use from its scientific meaning, and to establish an operational definition with defining attributes. Methods: A concept analysis was conducted following the eight-step model of Walker and Avant. Everyday uses were identified through dictionary searches and online engines (Google, ChatGPT-4, and Copilot). Professional uses were determined through a systematic literature review performed in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement. Eligible publications presented original definitions or descriptions of accompaniment and were written in English, French, Italian, Spanish, or German. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central. Methodological quality was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool for textual evidence. Attributes were extracted through a triangulated interpretative inductive analysis to derive a concise definition. Model, related, contrary, and borderline cases, as well as empirical referents, were developed. Results: From 378 records, 19 publications (16 main authors) met the inclusion criteria. The most frequent attributes described as accompaniment is a personal and ethical relationship oriented toward human development through a shared process that fosters a humanized social climate. The resulting definition was Accompaniment is a relational process between two or more people who share a path toward reciprocal development, in which at least one intentionally offers appreciation, presence, acceptance, and support to promote the other's full growth while respecting dignity, freedom, and context. Conclusion: Accompaniment differs from mentoring, coaching, counseling, motivational interviewing, preceptorship, and shared decision-making. It is a transversal, interdisciplinary concept that can contribute to humanizing healthcare and supports the development of future measurement tools.
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.