Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2020 article

Anatomy of positive messages in healthcare consultations: component analysis of messages within 22 randomised trials

14Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
1Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background: Patients desire both honesty and hope from their healthcare practitioners. A recent systematic review of 22 randomised trials found that healthcare practitioners who deliver positive messages improve patient outcomes, most notably by reducing pain. However, the verbal and non-verbal components of positive messages within these trials varied greatly, which presents a barrier to the implementation of person-centered care. Objective: This study investigates common components of positive messages within the reviewed trials. Methods: We extracted the verbal and non-verbal language used to deliver positive messages in 22 trials from a recent systematic review. Three independent researchers coded the components of the messages using content analysis. Results: Positive messages in our sample had between 2 and 18 different components. These were clustered into 5 areas: specifying the positive outcomes, making the message personal, drawing on associations and meanings, providing a supportive psychological context and providing a rationale. Messages were reinforced through repetition in half the studies. Within the clusters, the most common components of positive messages were suggestions of specific effects (18 studies) and personalised formulations (15 studies). Most studies did not describe the components of positive messages adequately. Conclusions: Positive messages within randomized trials are complex interventions, with most including strong suggestions about specific effects, presented confidently and made personally relevant to the individual patient. Future trials of positive messages should report all components of these interventions.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

La source scientifique ouverte est momentanément indisponible.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • University of Oxford pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure

University of Oxford.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Empathy and Medical EducationFamilies in Therapy and CulturePatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.