1 Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK.
2 Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, UK.
J R Soc Med. 2018 Jul;111(7):240-252. doi: 10.1177/0141076818769477. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
Background Practitioners 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. Objective To estimate the effects of empathy and expectations interventions for any clinical condition. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Data sources Six databases from inception to August 2017. Study selection Randomised trials of empathy or expectations interventions in any clinical setting with patients aged 12 years or older. Review methods Two 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. Results We 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. Conclusions Greater practitioner empathy or communication of positive messages can have small patient benefits for a range of clinical conditions, especially pain. Protocol registration Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (protocol) DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2.
提高表达同理心和创造积极获益预期的能力的从业者可以改善患者的结局。然而,这一领域的证据尚未得到最近的综合评估。目的:评估同理心和期望干预对任何临床情况的效果。设计:对任何临床环境中针对患者(年龄 12 岁及以上)的同理心或期望干预的随机试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析。数据来源:从开始到 2017 年 8 月,6 个数据库。研究选择:随机试验,评估同理心或期望干预在任何临床环境中的效果,患者年龄 12 岁及以上。综述方法:两名综述作者独立筛选引用文献、提取数据、评估偏倚风险并使用 GRADE 方法评估证据质量。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。结果:我们确定了 28 项符合条件的研究(n=6017)。在 7 项试验中,共情咨询可使疼痛、焦虑和满意度略有改善(标准化均数差-0.18 [95%置信区间-0.32 至-0.03])。22 项试验测试了积极期望的效果。其中 18 项(n=2014)报告了心理结局(主要是疼痛),显示出适度的益处(标准化均数差-0.43 [95%置信区间-0.65 至-0.21]);11 项(n=1790)报告了身体结局(包括支气管功能/住院时间),显示出较小的益处(标准化均数差-0.18 [95%置信区间-0.32 至-0.05])。在评估危害的 11 项试验(n=2706)中,没有证据表明存在不良影响(比值比 1.04;95%置信区间 0.67 至 1.63)。偏倚风险较低。主要局限性在于一些比较存在难以进行盲法和高度异质性的问题。结论:增强从业者的同理心或传达积极信息可能会给各种临床情况带来微小的患者获益,尤其是疼痛。方案注册:Cochrane 系统评价数据库(方案)DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD011934.pub2。