Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42860021›Full record

ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026

Supportive Outpatient-Provider Communication-A Scoping Review About Expectations, Experiences, and Actual Behaviours Regarding Healthcare Visits.

Sari Knaapi-Junnila, Tuula-Riitta Välikoski, Pekka Isotalus

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sari Knaapi-JunnilaTampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4443-1550
Tuula-Riitta VälikoskiTampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Pekka IsotalusTampere University, Tampere, Finland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3782-1286

Funding

FinELib ConsortiumHengityssairauksien TutkimussäätiöSuomalainen Konkordia-liittoVäinö ja Laina Kiven Säätiö
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleTwenty-first century healthcare has struggled with chronic illnesses while policies have emphasised patient centeredness and support. The importance of ambulatory visits and self-management necessitate understanding about supportive outpatient-provider communication. OBJECTIVES AND

methodsThis systematic scoping review focused on supportive communication as actual behaviours, and outpatients' expectations and experiences concerning visits. CINAHL, CIOS ComAbstracts, CMMC, and MEDLINE were searched for answering questions about (1) the extent, range, and nature of studies and (2) existing knowledge in 21st century. The framework presented by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews were utilised.

resultsAfter screening 310 hits, twelve studies were included. Studies were usually quantitative surveys about experiences, cancer, and specialised physicians in US. Existing data suggest that patients share common ground regarding supportive communication preferences while also differences exist. Access to care and it's continuity include in support desires. Provider's and patient's qualities affect provided support. Education and health status, inter alia, affect experiences. Mismatch between expected and experienced support, and experience of non-constructive support include in findings. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionThis review contributed by summarising the existing studies and findings, and by identifying research gaps. Actual evidence about supporting outpatient-provider communication is still thin and unilateral. Thus, gaps are manifold and we must be cautious with interpretations. Interdisciplinary collaboration is required to enhance our understanding. The lack of studies concerns especially (a) qualitative studies about diverse cultures, patients, and providers in primary care; (b) video materials about actual behaviours; (c) expectations (as values) together with experiences; (d) studies about expectations as probabilities. Importantly, organisations/systems should be perceived as integral (f)actors of supportive outpatient-provider communication. Existing knowledge about supportive, person-centred, and patient-provider communication is valuable until we know more about supportive outpatient-provider communication.

Indexed as

Ambulatory CareCommunicationOutpatientsPhysician-Patient RelationsChronic DiseaseHumansPatient-Centered CarePatient Satisfactioncommunicationexpectationsexperienceshealthcareoutpatientssocial supportsupportive communication

Identifiers

PMID42860021
PMCPMC13654483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.