Review3D printing in medicine2026
The psychological impact of using 3D printing and imaging technology for patient education: a scoping review.
Review in 3D printing in medicine, 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
backgroundThe way in which patient education is delivered during clinical consultations can have an impact on cognitive and emotional outcomes in patients. 3D printing and imaging can be used in patient education to improve understanding of the information and satisfaction with care. This scoping review sought to explore the psychological impact of using 3D models in patient education.
methodsSearches were conducted in PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, Medline and CINAHL. Levac et al.'s enhanced version of Arksey & O'Malley's methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews, and the PRISMA-ScR, were used to guide the screening and identification of relevant studies. Studies were included if they investigated the effect of using 3D models in patient education and explored psychological outcomes. Both quantitative and qualitative research were included.
resultsEleven studies were included in the review, including 2 qualitative studies. 3D models were most often used in educational consultations preceding a surgical procedure (n = 9). Psychological outcomes assessed were anxiety, quality of life, distress relief, and decisional conflict. The results were mixed, showing that using 3D models can have a positive as well as negative effect on psychological outcomes such as fear and disempowerment.
conclusionsUsing 3D models in patient education has the potential to improve patient anxiety and other psychological outcomes. However, more research is required to identify which patients and types of consultations 3D models are most useful for. For example, appointments involving important decision-making may benefit from the inclusion of 3D models. It is also essential to consider the communicative approach of the healthcare professional in the delivery of patient education with 3D models, as this factor is key to the outcomes of shared decision-making.
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.