ArticleBMJ open2026
Therapeutic empathy in remote consultations in general practice: a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRemote consultations (video, telephone, text) have become integral to the delivery of primary care and are promoted by government initiatives. While many find these more convenient, they may also discriminate against those with lower digital literacy and present a barrier to empathy by removing some non-verbal communication. The aim of this realist review is to understand how therapeutic empathy can be effectively expressed during remote consultations in general practice across different situations and for different people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This realist review will follow the methodological framework proposed by Pawson and colleagues, which includes the following five steps: (1) identify existing theories to develop an initial programme theory; (2) systematically search bibliographic databases to identify relevant literature; (3) select, extract and organise data; (4) synthesise evidence to develop context-mechanism-outcome configurations; (5) refine and finalise programme theory. This iterative process will be guided by a Content Expert Group consisting of patients, carers, clinical staff working in general practice and representatives from national stakeholder groups. The final programme theory will inform the development of evidence-based recommendations to help clinical staff working in general practice express empathy during remote consultations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences and through relevant professional associations and primary care networks in the UK. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420261306014.
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.