Dataset Information

The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether the patient-clinician relationship has a beneficial effect on either objective or validated subjective healthcare outcomes.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data sources

Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the reference sections of previous reviews.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients in which the patient-clinician relationship was systematically manipulated and healthcare outcomes were either objective (e.g., blood pressure) or validated subjective measures (e.g., pain scores). Studies were excluded if the encounter was a routine physical, or a mental health or substance abuse visit; if the outcome was an intermediate outcome such as patient satisfaction or adherence to treatment; if the patient-clinician relationship was manipulated solely by intervening with patients; or if the duration of the clinical encounter was unequal across conditions.

Results

Thirteen RCTs met eligibility criteria. Observed effect sizes for the individual studies ranged from d = -.23 to .66. Using a random-effects model, the estimate of the overall effect size was small (d = .11), but statistically significant (p = .02).

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs suggests that the patient-clinician relationship has a small, but statistically significant effect on healthcare outcomes. Given that relatively few RCTs met our eligibility criteria, and that the majority of these trials were not specifically designed to test the effect of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes, we conclude with a call for more research on this important topic.

SUBMITTER: Kelley JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3981763 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Kelley John M JM Kraft-Todd Gordon G Schapira Lidia L Kossowsky Joe J Riess Helen H

PloS one 20140409 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the patient-clinician relationship has a beneficial effect on either objective or validated subjective healthcare outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Electronic databases EMBASE and MEDLINE and the reference sections of previous reviews.<h4>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies</h4>Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adult patients in which the patient-clinician relationship was syst ...[more]

PMID: 24718585

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Deep neuromuscular blockade may facilitate the use of reduced insufflation pressure without compromising the surgical field of vision. The current evidence, which suggests improved surgical conditions compared with other levels of block during laparoscopic surgery, features significant heterogeneity. We examined surgical patient- and healthcare resource use-related outcomes of deep neuromuscular blockade compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade in adults undergoing laparoscopic surgery. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review according to the quality standards recommended by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. Randomized controlled trials comparing outcomes of deep neuromuscular blockade and moderate neuromuscular blockade among adults undergoing laparoscopic surgeries were included. A random-effects model was used to conduct pair-wise meta-analyses. RESULTS:The systematic literature review included 15 studies-only 13 were analyzable in the meta-analysis and none were judged to be at high risk of bias. Compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade, deep neuromuscular blockade was associated with improved surgical field of vision and higher vision quality scores. Also, deep neuromuscular blockade was associated with a reduction in the post-operative pain scores in the post-anesthesia care unit compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade, and there was no need for an increase in intra-abdominal pressure during the surgical procedures. There were minor savings on resource utilization, but no differences were seen in recovery in the post-anesthesia care unit or overall length of hospital stay with deep neuromuscular blockade. CONCLUSIONS:Deep neuromuscular blockade may aid the patient and physician surgical experience by improving certain patient outcomes, such as post-operative pain and improved surgical ratings, compared with moderate neuromuscular blockade. Heterogeneity in the pooled estimates suggests the need for better designed randomized controlled trials.

Project description:Multiple randomized controlled trials of remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) prior to cardiac surgery have failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of RIPC on outcomes following cardiac surgery.Searches of PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were performed for 1970 to December 13, 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing RIPC with a sham procedure prior to cardiac surgery performed with cardiopulmonary bypass were assessed. All-cause mortality, acute kidney injury (AKI), and myocardial infarction were the primary outcomes of interest. We identified 21 trials that randomized 5262 patients to RIPC or a sham procedure prior to undergoing cardiac surgery. The majority of patients were men (72.6%) and the mean or median age ranged from 42.3 to 76.3 years. Of the 9 trials that evaluated mortality, 188 deaths occurred out of a total of 4210 randomized patients, with 96 deaths occurring in 2098 patients (4.6%) randomized to RIPC and 92 deaths occurring in 2112 patients (4.4%) randomized to a sham control procedure, demonstrating no significant reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.987; 95% CI, 0.653-1.492, P=0.95). Twelve studies evaluated AKI in 4209 randomized patients. In these studies, AKI was observed in 516 of 2091 patients (24.7%) undergoing RIPC and in 577 of 2118 patients (27.2%) randomized to a sham procedure. RIPC did not result in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.839; 95% CI, 0.703-1.001 [P=0.052]). In 6 studies consisting of 3799 randomized participants, myocardial infarction occurred in 237 of 1891 patients (12.5%) randomized to RIPC and in 282 of 1908 patients (14.8%) randomized to a sham procedure, resulting in no significant reduction in postoperative myocardial infarction (RR, 0.809; 95% CI, 0.615-1.064 [P=0.13]). A subgroup analysis was performed a priori based on previous studies suggesting that propofol may mitigate the protective benefits of RIPC. Three studies randomized patients undergoing cardiac surgery to RIPC or sham procedure in the absence of propofol anesthesia. Most of these patients were men (60.3%) and the mean or median age ranged from 57.0 to 70.6 years. In this propofol-free subgroup of 434 randomized patients, 71 of 217 patients (32.7%) who underwent RIPC developed AKI compared with 103 of 217 patients (47.5%) treated with a sham procedure. In this cohort, RIPC resulted in a significant reduction in AKI (RR, 0.700; 95% CI, 0.527-0.930 [P=0.014]). In studies of patients who received propofol anesthesia, 445 of 1874 (23.7%) patients randomized to RIPC developed AKI compared with 474 of 1901 (24.9%) who underwent a sham procedure. The RR for AKI was 0.928 (95% CI, 0.781-1.102; P=0.39) for RIPC versus sham. There was no significant interaction between the two subgroups (P=0.098).RIPC does not reduce morbidity or mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. In the subgroup of studies in which propofol was not used, a reduction in AKI was seen, suggesting that propofol may interact with the protective effects of RIPC. Future studies should evaluate RIPC in the absence of propofol anesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 19 (covid-19) pandemic has underscored the need to expedite clinical research, which may lead investigators to shift away from measuring patient-important outcomes (PIO), limiting research applicability. We aim to investigate if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of covid-19 pharmacological therapies include PIOs.MethodsWe will perform a meta-epidemiological study of RCTs that included people at risk for, or with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19, examining any pharmacological treatment or blood product aimed at prophylaxis or treatment. We will obtain data from all RCTs identified in a living network metanalysis (NMA). The main data sources are the living WHO covid-19 database up to 1 March 2021 and six additional Chinese databases up to 20 February 2021. Two reviewers independently will review each citation, full-text article, and abstract data. To categorize the outcomes according to their importance to patients, we will adapt a previously defined hierarchy: a) mortality, b) quality of life/ functional status/symptoms, c) morbidity, and d) surrogate outcomes. Outcomes within the category a) and b) will be considered critically important to patients, and outcomes within the category c) will be regarded as important. We will use descriptive statistics to assess the proportion of studies that report each category of outcomes. We will perform univariable and multivariable analysis to explore associations between trial characteristics and the likelihood of reporting PIOs.DiscussionThe findings from this meta-epidemiological study will help health care professionals and researchers understand if the current covid-19 trials are effectively assessing and reporting the outcomes that are important to patients. If a deficiency in capturing PIOs is identified, this information may help inform the development of future RCTs in covid-19.Systematic review registrationsOpen Science Framework registration: osf.io/6xgjz .

Dataset Information

The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective

Design

Data sources

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The influence of the patient-clinician relationship on healthcare outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets