ReviewFrontiers in public health2026
Cognitive appraisal processes and health: from bench to bedside.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response shift-adjusted longitudinal assessment of patient-reported outcomes in older people living with HIV: a multilevel structural equation and Rasch analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Physical activity and loneliness interrelations with retirement status, health, and personality factors: a theory-based study.Frontiers in psychology · 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/objectives: After two decades of cognitive-appraisal research in spine surgery and other medically ill patients, the present work reviewed the published literature on cognitive-appraisal processes and health outcomes to determine key findings and considerations, and how they point to appraisal-assessment based interventions to improve clinical outcomes. Methods: The present work reviewed the published literature on cognitive-appraisal processes and health outcomes to determine key findings and considerations, and how they point to interventions to improve clinical outcomes. These implications were further examined in terms of when such appraisal processes should be addressed and how individual differences should be explicitly considered. Results: The literature review identified 53 articles, of which 26 were retained for further review and 27 were excluded because they either (1) used a different definition of cognitive appraisal or (2) focused solely on measurement development; methodological or statistical development; or theory development. The findings from the retained studies highlighted the following cognitive-appraisal processes in order of frequency of mention: Sampling of Experience, Standards of Comparison, Frame of Reference, and Combinatory Algorithm. Empirical findings also generally supported more interventions on appraisal processes after surgery rather than before. An appraisal-assessment based intervention is proposed that builds on the empirical evidence. Conclusion: It is our hope that the present work has provided the next logical step in response-shift research, moving from basic, foundational findings to implications for clinical interventions that can help medically ill patients recover in more lasting and deeper ways from surgery and other health state changes.
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.