ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Patient-Provider Communication in Plastic Surgery: Enhancing Outcomes Through Effective Engagement and Culturally Responsive Care.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient-provider communication is fundamental to successful plastic surgery outcomes, yet communication barriers persist across diverse patient populations. This narrative review examines effective communication strategies and shared decision-making practices on patient engagement in plastic surgery. Additionally, it assesses how culturally responsive approaches can improve care quality and optimize surgical outcomes within the specialty.
methodsA narrative review of English-language literature (January 2004-November 2025) was performed using PubMed, Google Scholar, and reference citation tracking. Utilizing search terms related to plastic surgery, patient communication, and shared decision-making, 150 articles were screened, with 37 ultimately selected for qualitative synthesis.
resultsSix domains emerged: communication effectiveness, shared decision-making, digital tools, trust-building, cultural responsiveness, and patient outcomes. Empathy and clarity correlated with higher satisfaction (e.g., meta-analysis: reduced decisional conflict). Digital tools improved access but raised privacy risks; cultural sensitivity reduced disparities (e.g., lower reconstruction rates in minorities). Training boosted adherence and safety. Implications for practice include structured shared decision-making tools, culturally tailored education, and ethics-guided digital communication protocols to reduce disparities and optimize outcomes.
conclusionsStructured, empathetic, culturally responsive communication improves shared decision-making, trust, equity, and surgical outcomes in plastic surgery. Evidence-based training and tools are essential for patient-centered care in diverse, technology-driven practices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42557454What 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.