Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: There are many populations vulnerable to poor communication in healthcare settings, increasing risk for poor patient outcomes, dissatisfaction, and patient safety incidents. Information is urgently needed about effective interventions across a range of populations vulnerable to communication difficulty, to improve care.
Objectives: To find relevant studies within CENTRAL for prioritizing future systematic reviews on interventions improving communication for communicatively vulnerable populations in clinical settings.
Methods: The authors developed a conceptual framework on communicative vulnerability in clinical settings and used it to build a list of search terms to search CENTRAL. We then located potentially relevant studies within CENTRAL on interventions for improving health communication; and excluded irrelevant studies from the search results to arrive at a group of relevant studies for prioritizing future systematic reviews. Selection criteria were developed to screen results combining interventions and outcomes.
Results: The conceptual framework identified populations vulnerable to communication difficulties in hospitals and other health settings, including all groups who may face social, sensory, physical or cognitive limitations, as well as groups with specific health conditions. The inclusion criteria were that the study described an intervention related to health communication between patient and provider in a clinical setting; and reported a health or communication outcome, based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Groupás taxonomy of outcomes. We searched CENTRAL (20 December 2010) and retrieved 9635 potentially relevant studies. We conducted an initial screening on all citations at May 2011, and excluded 7755 on title and/or abstract. Final screening will be done on the full text for 1880 studies.
Conclusions: The conceptual framework developed will guide further work examining the relevant studies. The dataset of relevant studies will be used for mapping the evidence and determining priorities for systematic reviews of the evidence to influence improvements in policy and practice in healthcare interactions.
Objectives: To find relevant studies within CENTRAL for prioritizing future systematic reviews on interventions improving communication for communicatively vulnerable populations in clinical settings.
Methods: The authors developed a conceptual framework on communicative vulnerability in clinical settings and used it to build a list of search terms to search CENTRAL. We then located potentially relevant studies within CENTRAL on interventions for improving health communication; and excluded irrelevant studies from the search results to arrive at a group of relevant studies for prioritizing future systematic reviews. Selection criteria were developed to screen results combining interventions and outcomes.
Results: The conceptual framework identified populations vulnerable to communication difficulties in hospitals and other health settings, including all groups who may face social, sensory, physical or cognitive limitations, as well as groups with specific health conditions. The inclusion criteria were that the study described an intervention related to health communication between patient and provider in a clinical setting; and reported a health or communication outcome, based on the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Groupás taxonomy of outcomes. We searched CENTRAL (20 December 2010) and retrieved 9635 potentially relevant studies. We conducted an initial screening on all citations at May 2011, and excluded 7755 on title and/or abstract. Final screening will be done on the full text for 1880 studies.
Conclusions: The conceptual framework developed will guide further work examining the relevant studies. The dataset of relevant studies will be used for mapping the evidence and determining priorities for systematic reviews of the evidence to influence improvements in policy and practice in healthcare interactions.