ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
When Personalization Does Not Change Care: A Critical Narrative Review and an Organizational Decoupling Framework.
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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesPatient-centred practices do not by themselves show whether an individual's priorities influence care. This review asks how organizational decoupling theory can inform a traceable response to those priorities and locate a loss of influence.
methodsA theory-informed critical narrative review used a purposive analytical bibliography of 63 publications. The authors' preliminary categories, professional experience, and organizational theory guided interpretation. A source-to-claim matrix separates published findings, conceptual arguments, and proposed mechanisms. The framework was refined through comparison with literature, without independent inductive coding.
resultsThree candidate mechanisms concern influence over service design, the expression and recognition of patient goals, and the organizational response to experience and outcome data. They may overlap and do not exhaust the possible explanations. A proposed loop links the goal, decision, action, outcome, and review. Its assessment distinguishes evidence of lost influence from justified plan retention and insufficient information. A hypothetical care pathway and a research programme specify how to test these distinctions while accounting for changing preferences, implementation fidelity, and documentation burden.
conclusionsThe contribution is an account of where patient influence may be lost and what a considered response would involve. The three mechanisms and the order of the loop are conceptual propositions. Their reliability, explanatory value, and effects on care require independent evaluation before use as performance indicators.
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.