RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Nonverbal communication plays a pivotal role in the provision of effective patient care and has been associated with important patient health outcomes. Clinician posture, a nonverbal form of communication, may influence the patient experience and satisfaction. The relationship between clinician posture (i.e., standing or at the patient's eye level) and patient perceptions of clinician communication in the hospital-a setting with heightened power dynamics between patient and clinician-is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO PsycInfo, Elsevier Embase/Embase Classic, Elsevier Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection up to May 2023. English language studies were included if they compared clinician posture (eye-level or standing) during adult inpatient (including emergency department) interactions. Two authors independently abstracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias or quality of evidence. A third author arbitrated any disagreements. Studies reported adherence to the posture intervention and/or patient perception outcomes. The latter included encounter duration, preferences for posture type, perceptions of interaction quality and clinician communication and compassion, and standardized assessments of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (six randomized controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, four observational studies) assessed clinician posture at the bedside. Ten noted at least one favorable outcome for clinicians who communicated at the patient's eye level, three revealed no differences in patient perceptions between standing and sitting, and one noted higher patient ratings for standing clinicians. Findings were limited by variation in interventions and outcomes, generally high risk of bias, and relatively low adherence to assigned posture groups. DISCUSSION: Compared to standing, eye-level communication by clinicians appears beneficial. The magnitude and types of benefits clinicians and patients may gain from this behavior remain unclear given heterogeneity and generally high risk of bias in available studies. With its relatively easy implementation and potential for benefit, clinicians should consider communicating with their hospitalized patients at eye level. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020199817.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore what non-pharmacological interventions have been examined for individuals with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search of the databases PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1983-Feb. 2023. Our scoping review included studies that examined non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with APS using patient-reported outcome measures. We excluded studies that reported physiological outcomes only. RESULTS: The review yielded one case study on the safety and efficacy of an exercise program for a 15-year-old male with secondary APS using physiological and patient-reported outcome measures. Despite the lack of evidence of non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with APS, one excluded study reported that individuals with APS want guidance about physical activity and exercise. We also found several types of potentially relevant non-pharmacological interventions for individuals with lupus, a disease that often co-occurs with APS. CONCLUSIONS: Non-pharmacological interventions may offer a solution for addressing some non-thrombotic or non-obstetric APS symptoms, such as neurological, physical, and cognitive symptoms that are not well-controlled by anticoagulation. Due to the unique risks associated with APS, research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions, particularly those involving exercise. Adopting a comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach to managing patients with APS and involving rehabilitation professionals, who are experts in the design and delivery of non-pharmacological interventions, may provide a foundation for developing and testing novel interventions that improve health outcomes while also fulfilling unmet needs reported by patients.