Cited by 221Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMusic Therapy and HealthEmpathy and Medical Education

Preoperative anxiety in ambulatory surgery: the impact of an empathic patient-centered approach on psychological and clinical outcomes

Pereira, Lígia, Figueiredo-Braga, Margarida, Carvalho, Irene P.·2016·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective This study aims to evaluate the influence of an empathic patient-centered approach on preoperative anxiety and surgical outcomes in ambulatory surgery patients.Methods A sample of 104 patients undergoing general ambulatory surgery was randomly assigned to the intervention (IG) and the control (CG) groups. Before surgery, the IG received personalized information through an empathic patient-centered interview. The CG received standardized information on surgical procedures. Anxiety was assessed before and after the preoperative interview and after the surgery. Wound healing, post-surgical recovery and satisfaction with the quality of preoperative information were assessed after the surgery.Results The two groups were identical at baseline regarding anxiety, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics. After the patient-centered intervention, the IG showed lower levels of preoperative anxiety (p<0.001) and pain (p<0.001), better surgery recovery (p<0.01) and higher levels of daily activity (p<0.001) and of satisfaction with the information received (p<0.01) than the CG. The IG also showed better wound healing (tissue type, p<0.01; local pain, p<0.01).Conclusion An empathic patient-centered intervention can reduce preoperative anxiety and increase surgical recovery, wound healing and patient satisfaction.Practice implications This approach is applicable in pre-surgical interviews and can potentially be used in the routine care of various surgical contexts.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2015.11.016

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pereira, L., Figueiredo-Braga, M., & Carvalho, I. P.
Affiliations
Universidade do Porto (PT)
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-05
Volume
99
Issue
5
Pages
733-738
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2254158811
Cited by
221
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11
FWCI
9.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Music Therapy and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Empathy and Medical Education
Keywords
preoperative anxiety, outpatient surgery, patient-centered care, empathic communication, preoperative information, wound healing, postoperative recovery, postoperative pain, patient satisfaction, general surgery
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Surgical Procedures, Anxiety, Communication, Empathy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Pain, Patient Education as Topic, Preoperative Care, Socioeconomic Factors, Stress, Psychological, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction, Patient-Centered Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review