Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42037840›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Healthcare Professional Advocacy Practices to Promote Patient Safety: A Systematic Review.

Cecilia Z Kayali, Nadia Baichoo, Natasha D Casas, Kristin M Lefebvre, Kerstin Leuther

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cecilia Z KayaliClinical Research, University of Jamestown, Fargo, USA.
Nadia BaichooClinical Research, University of Jamestown, Fargo, USA.
Natasha D CasasClinical Research, University of Jamestown, Fargo, USA.
Kristin M LefebvreClinical Research, University of Jamestown, Fargo, USA.
Kerstin LeutherClinical Research, University of Jamestown, Fargo, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to synthesize qualitative and cross-sectional evidence describing how healthcare professionals (HCPs) apply patient advocacy (PA) practices to support patient safety and to inform strategies that strengthen patient safety through advocacy. A systematic literature search of CINAHL Complete and EBSCO MegaFILE was conducted on 26 September 2025, and PubMed was searched on 13 March 2026. Qualitative and cross-sectional studies meeting predefined eligibility criteria were included. Affinity mapping was used for thematic analysis, risk of bias was assessed using CASP checklists for qualitative research and for descriptive/cross-sectional studies, and certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE-CERQual. Sixteen studies from 13 countries were included. Five interrelated themes described how HCPs advocated for patient safety: interprofessional collaboration, risk prevention, patient education and informed consent, safety-oriented advocacy behaviors, and medication management and polypharmacy. Across studies, advocacy practices involved collaborative decision-making, proactive risk mitigation, patient engagement through education and informed consent, safety-focused clinical prioritization, and vigilant medication management in complex care contexts. PA for safety is a multidimensional practice expressed through interconnected clinical, relational, and systems-level behaviors across healthcare settings. Recognizing advocacy as a core component of patient safety may guide the development of scalable, context-responsive interventions to support HCPs in safeguarding patients.

Indexed as

healthcare professionalspatient advocacypatient safetysafety culturesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42037840
PMCPMC13103611

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.