ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
From Patient Voice to Organizational Adaptability: A Critical Narrative Review and Conceptual Model for Personalized Care.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hospital routines can elicit patients' views without providing a reliable route for acting on them. The aim of this article is to develop a positive organizational model in which patient voice provides the basis for tailoring care, while professional responsibility remains with the clinical team and healthcare organization. We conducted a critical narrative review with conceptual synthesis, drawing on a previously assembled corpus of 105 full-text publications and a targeted update completed on 10 August 2026. The analysis compared patient input, organizational responses and limits of transferability. Search documentation was incomplete, and effects were not pooled. The framework distinguishes four types of input, five request dispositions, seven organizational actions and three response domains. These are working constructs informed by literature and conceptual reasoning. The proposed process retains the patient's wording, assigns responsibility, explains constraints and checks the result. It places recovery, function and relief of suffering at the center of organizational decisions. Implementation could use existing nursing and care-management roles or a dedicated coordinator, with protected time and clear clinical boundaries. We propose patient and professional co-design followed by a prospective multisite feasibility pilot. The pilot would examine response completeness, accessibility, workload and measurement feasibility. A subsequent comparative study would evaluate goal concordance, quality of life, adherence, satisfaction, safety and costs. The accompanying pilot specification provides candidate questions, coding procedures and progression criteria. No pilot data or evidence of the model's effectiveness are reported.
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.