MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413184065 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmhs.2025.100116

Facilitating patient and caregiver voicing in hospital settings: A narrative synthesis of the literature and conceptual framework

2025· article· en· W4413184065 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Health Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPublic Health OntarioTrillium Health CentreUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVoiceNarrativeConceptual frameworkPsychologySociologyLinguisticsPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While health systems increasingly recognize the critical role that patient and caregiver feedback plays in person-centered care, patients and caregivers often experience barriers to voicing their ideas, suggestions, and concerns. The aim of this narrative synthesis is to identify within the literature organizational behaviours and contextual factors that have been shown to help facilitate patient and caregiver voicing (expressing ideas, opinions, or suggestions to improve individual, group, or organizational functioning) in hospital settings and develop a conceptual framework of these enablers. A narrative synthesis review of the literature was conducted. A systematic search across three databases generated 14,273 records, and 10,129 once duplicates were removed. Following full-text review and application of the inclusion criteria, 89 articles were included in the synthesis. The results from this narrative synthesis identify practice and organizational factors that, when implemented together, may enable patient and caregiver voice in inpatient hospital settings. The organizational behaviours and interventions described include creating spaces to elicit patient and caregiver voice, using communication practices that support voice, and showing care for the full person. Enabling factors identified were having an organizational commitment to person-centered practice, supportive work processes and organizational policies, patient personal resources and voicing preferences, and staff motivation, orientation to care, and skills. There is an opportunity to improve patient and caregiver voicing during care episodes to advance the provision of person-centered care in healthcare organizations. Drawing from the literature, we propose a conceptual framework that reflects the conditions needed to support patient and caregiver voicing in hospital settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it