Scoping review reveals communication gaps in spinal cord injury rehabilitation, suggesting improved strategies may boost patient satisfaction and work satisfaction.
Background: Experiencing a spinal cord injury (SCI) entails profound biopsychosocial challenges. In this context, patient-provider communication is of critical importance. Yet, the unique complexities of SCI make effective communication particularly difficult. Objectives: This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of existing research on patient-provider communication in SCI, providing insights in the focus, the methodology, and the findings of current research and identifying research gaps. Methods: The search was conducted on CINAHL, PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Science Direct. Results of the included studies were thematically analyzed. Results: A total of 30 studies were included. Current research focuses on verbal communication and the communication function of information delivery. Most studies are cross-sectional qualitative studies, involving either patients or health care providers (HCPs). HCP communication skills, individual patient preferences, and interprofessional communication were the most frequently found influencing factors of patient-provider communication. Identified outcomes of patient-provider communication included higher engagement and satisfaction in patients and enhanced work satisfaction and reduced stress for HCPs. Discussion: Despite the importance of communication in SCI, significant gaps remain. Studies have largely neglected key areas such as partnership-building, digital and written communication, and interventional research. Given the central role of communication in SCI rehabilitation, these gaps are particularly concerning and demand attention. Conclusion: This review reinforces the necessity for tailored, person-centered communication strategies that address the unique complexities of SCI rehabilitation. It calls for more comprehensive research to develop communication interventions that benefit both patients and HCPs, with a strong focus on long-term effects.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Häfliger et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: