Observational studyBMC health services research2026
Patient-centered communication in cosmetic eyelid surgery consultations in China: an observational transcript-based E5 study.
Observational study in BMC health services research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElective cosmetic procedures are preference-sensitive encounters in which satisfaction depends on aligning clinically feasible options with patient's aesthetic goals and expectations. Yet, in high-throughput outpatient services, the extent to which patient-centered communication is operationalized in real consultations remains under-documented.
methodsWe conducted an observational, transcript-based mixed qualitative and descriptive-quantitative study of 50 audio-recorded consultations for double-eyelid blepharoplasty and medial epicanthoplasty at a tertiary oculoplastics center in Shanghai, China. Consultations were transcribed verbatim, and doctors' talk was segmented into minimal intonation units and coded to the E5 framework (Engage, Educate, Empathize, Enable, Enlist). We used thematic qualitative analysis and descriptive quantitative summaries of speaking-time distribution and strategy-specific time to characterize how communication functions were distributed and enacted in routine service delivery.
resultsConversations averaged 10.8 min; doctors accounted for 85% of speaking time. Educational talk dominated doctor's E5-coded time (66.6%), driven primarily by step-by-step procedural explanations and brief visual demonstrations. In contrast, relational and participatory strategies were rare: Engage≈1.5% of E5 time, Empathize 3.6% (combined), and Enlist 1.7%. Preference negotiating and expectation-setting were consistently shorter than procedural explanation, indicating limited interactional space for patients to articulate goals, anxieties, or social motivations.
conclusionsIn this high-volume tertiary public oculoplastic service in Shanghai, consultations were strongly information-delivery-oriented but minimally participatory, with clinician talk effectively setting the aesthetic agenda. To better align practice with patient-centered care and shared decision-making, services should streamline repetitive explanations (e.g., via reusable visual/digital materials) and protect brief, observable elicitation and enlistment moments within the visit so that patient values can actively shape the surgical plan.
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.