| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Howick, Jeremy, et al.
(author)
-
Effects of empathic and positive communication in healthcare consultations: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- 2018
-
In: Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. - : Sage Publications. - 0141-0768 .- 1758-1095. ; 111:7, s. 240-252
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundPractitioners who enhance how they express empathy and create positive expectations of benefit could improve patient outcomes. However, the evidence in this area has not been recently synthesised.ObjectiveTo estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourceSix databases from inception to August 2017.Study selectionRandomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently screened citations, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and graded quality of evidence using GRADE. Random effects model was used for meta-analysis.ResultsWe identified 28 eligible (n = 6017). In seven trials, empathic consultations improved pain, anxiety and satisfaction by a small amount (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.03]). Twenty-two trials tested the effects of positive expectations. Eighteen of these (n = 2014) reported psychological outcomes (mostly pain) and showed a modest benefit (standardised mean difference −0.43 [95% confidence interval −0.65 to −0.21]); 11 (n = 1790) reported physical outcomes (including bronchial function/ length of hospital stay) and showed a small benefit (standardised mean difference −0.18 [95% confidence interval −0.32 to −0.05]). Within 11 trials (n = 2706) assessing harms, there was no evidence of adverse effects (odds ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 1.63). The risk of bias was low. The main limitations were difficulties in blinding and high heterogeneity for some comparisons.ConclusionGreater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain.Protocol registrationCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.
|
|
| 3. |
- Howick, Jeremy, et al.
(author)
-
Positive "framing" as a powerful medication for pain : A meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2016
-
In: European Journal of Integrative Medicine. - : Elsevier. - 1876-3820 .- 1876-3839. ; 8, s. 57-59
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction: A growing body of evidence suggests that positive framing–inducing positive expectations about the outcome of treatments can reduce pain symptoms. However there is no pooled estimate of the effect size of positive framing for treating pain. Such an estimate is useful to understand the extent to which positive expectations can enhance usual care.Methods: We extracted data from a recent systematic review of interventions that modified all "context factors" (including but not limited to) inducing positive expectations) in adults suffering from pain. The systematic review concluded that positive expectations were effective, but did not pool the results so no effect size was provided. Two authors independently extracted data from the studies and conducted the analysis. Our primary outcome was patient self-reported pain.Results: 10 randomized trials were eligible for meta-analysis. In the trials with continuous outcomes the standardized effect size was −0.39 (95% confidence interval −0.68 to −0.10, p = 0.009, I2 = 79%), suggesting reduced pain on average in groups in which positive expectations were induced. The effect size was similar in magnitude but was not statistically significant when we excluded studies deemed to have a high risk of bias (standard effect size −0.31, 95% CI −0.65 to 0.02, p = 0.07, I2 = 77%).Conclusion: The effect of inducing positive expectations is comparable to the effects of some pharmacological drugs. However many of the studies had a high risk of bias, and heterogeneity was significant. Future research is warranted including investigating ways to implement this evidence into patient care in an ethical way.
|
|
