Cited by 49Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcarePatient Satisfaction in HealthcarePrimary Care and Health Outcomes

Applied techniques for putting pre-visit planning in clinical practice to empower patient-centered care in the pandemic era: a systematic review and framework suggestion

Open access
Gholamzadeh, Marsa, Abtahi, Hamidreza, Ghazisaeeidi, Marjan·2021·BMC Health Services Research

Abstract

Background: One of the main elements of patient-centered care is an enhancement of patient preparedness. Thus, pre-visit planning assessment tools was emerged to prepare and involve patients in their treatment process. Objective: The main objective of this article was to review the applied tools and techniques for consideration of putting pre-visit planning into practice. Methods: Web of Science, Scopus, IEEE, and PubMed databases were searched using keywords from January 2001 to November 2020. The review was completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist. Then, qualitative analysis was done to suggest an appropriate framework by mapping the main concepts. Results: Out of 385 citations were retrieved in initial database searches, 49 studies from ten countries were included. Applied pre-visit techniques can be classified into eight categories. Our results showed that almost 81% of studies were related to procedures that were done between each visit, while 42% of articles were related to before visits. Accordingly, the main approach of included articles was patient preparedness. While 38 studies reported this approach is effective, three studies reported the effectiveness of such tools as moderate, only two articles believed it had a low effect on improving patient-centered care. Conclusion: This survey summarized the characteristics of published studies on pre-visit planning in the proposed framework. This approach could enhance the quality of patient care alongside enhancement patient-provider communication. However, such an approach can also be helpful to control pandemic diseases by reducing unnecessary referrals.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12913-021-06456-7

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A systematic review found that over 80% of studies showed pre-visit planning improves patient-provider communication, patient knowledge, illness perception, and care satisfaction.

    “A systematic review found that over 80% of studies showed pre-visit planning improves patient-provider communication, patient knowledge, illness perception, and care satisfaction.”

    From Caregiver experiences of an integrative patient-centered digital health application for pediatric type 1 diabetes care: Findings from a pilot clinical trial (2025) · cites this paper as [39]

    In Results, under “The effectiveness of pre-visit planning” (page not specified), the review reports that 41 of 49 studies (83.67%) considered pre-visit planning effective overall. The Conclusion and Discussion describe improved patient-provider communication, illness perceptions, and satisfaction, and the Results table includes patient knowledge. But the review does not say that over 80% of studies found improvements in all four outcomes; that percentage refers to effectiveness across varied measures. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gholamzadeh, M., Abtahi, H., & Ghazisaeeidi, M.
Affiliations
  • Tehran University of Medical Sciences (IR)
  • Imam Khomeini Hospital (IR)
Venue
BMC Health Services Research
Published
2021-05-13
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
458-458
ISSN
1472-6963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162505328
Cited by
49
References
98
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Health Services Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
Keywords
pre-visit planning, patient-centered care, patient readiness, patient-provider communication, COVID-19 pandemic, unnecessary referrals, clinical practice implementation, framework development
MeSH terms
Communication, Humans, Patient-Centered Care, Pandemics

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