Global Communication Practices and Their Impact on Patient Caregivers’ Satisfaction in the Surgical Waiting Area: A Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background/Objectives: Effective communication between healthcare professionals and patient caregivers is paramount in the surgical waiting area, particularly during periods of heightened stress and emotional vulnerability. Globally, communication practices exhibit considerable variability, from traditional face-to-face interactions to integrating advanced digital technologies. Despite innovations, a comprehensive understanding of the impact of diverse communication strategies on patient caregiver satisfaction remains underdeveloped. This scoping review was designed to systematically map the existing literature on healthcare communication practices and identify strategies that may influence satisfaction among patient caregivers. Methods: A thorough search of multiple databases—Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, ProQuest, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries—was conducted. Only studies published in English or those for which an English full text was accessible were included. Eligible studies were those undertaken in hospital settings, including operating theaters, surgical units, surgical waiting areas, postoperative intensive care units, emergency departments, and other clinical areas focusing on patient caregivers. The review adhered to the methodological framework recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute for scoping reviews and was reported following the most recent PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: Ultimately, five studies met the inclusion criteria. The selection process involved a structured search utilizing Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), keywords, and index terms, supplemented by manual reference list screening. Initial screening was performed based on titles and abstracts, followed by full-text evaluation using a standardized selection form. Data extraction focused on the communication methods, study designs, and outcomes related to patient caregiver satisfaction. The findings are synthesized narratively and presented through tables and figures, offering a comprehensive overview of global communication practices and their influence on patient caregiver satisfaction in surgical environments. Across the five included studies, digital communication interventions such as SMS, mobile apps, or video updates reported improved patient caregiver satisfaction (e.g., 70.8% in Canada and 97% in Switzerland) and also reduced patient caregiver anxiety (e.g., STAI score ≥ 44) in 74.2% of Ethiopian patient caregivers. Worldwide evidence highlights the practical importance of tailored digital communication practices to support providing timely and accessible information to patient caregivers, while also revealing gaps linked to insurance status, digital literacy, and various communication approaches in healthcare systems. Conclusions: The five studies included showed considerable variation in communication practices across surgical settings. The main findings reveal that structured, timely, and transparent communication, mainly via digital tools such as SMS updates and mobile applications, enhanced patient caregiver satisfaction and alleviated their emotional distress too. Nevertheless, gaps were identified in postoperative communication, and challenges, such as technological accessibility, digital literacy skills of patient caregivers, and inconsistent methods for measuring satisfaction outcomes, were noted across studies. This scoping review identified the different types of healthcare communication practices adopted globally in surgical care settings and also demonstrated their influence on patient caregiver satisfaction. Traditional and digital communication practices both have their significant impact on patient caregiver experiences in surgical healthcare settings, focusing more on timely and consistent real-time updates and culturally sensitive information. Addressing the existing communication gaps and having tailored communication approaches to specific contexts may lead to improved patient caregiver support and surgical outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».