ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Supportive Outpatient-Provider Communication-A Scoping Review About Expectations, Experiences, and Actual Behaviours Regarding Healthcare Visits.
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.
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.
- Supportive Outpatient-Provider Communication-A Scoping Review About Expectations, Experiences, and Actual Behaviours Regarding Healthcare Visits.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
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
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
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.