Scholarlink

Objective <p>Balint groups are a crucial method for improving the relationship between medical students/doctors and patients. Nevertheless, no review has examined the effects of Balint groups in this regard. This study aimed to conduct quantitative meta-analyses and qualitative meta-syntheses based on a systematic review to provide references for improving doctor‒patient relationships.</p> Methods <p>We searched six databases from inception through October 2024. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and quality assessment. Quantitative data were analyzed using meta-analysis methods with standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in RevMan 5.4.1, while qualitative results were summarized using meta-synthesis methods.</p> Results <p>A total of 56 studies were included, including 45 quantitative studies and 11 qualitative studies. Two, fifty-one, and three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, unclear risk or some concerns, and high risk of bias, respectively. Thirteen quantitative studies were included in the meta-analyses. Compared with those in the control group, participants in the Balint group had higher communication scores and empathy scores and lower anxiety scores (SMD = 1.26, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.56, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 0%, five studies; SMD = 2.40, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.49, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 96%, six studies; SMD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.19, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 71%, three studies). Participants who received the Balint intervention had significantly lower burnout scores in emotional exhaustion and reduced&#xa0;personal accomplishment among healthcare workers post-intervention compared with pre-intervention (SMD = -1.62, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.03, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 88%, three studies; SMD = -1.22, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.17, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 74%, three studies), while no significant change was saw in cynicism (SMD = -0.90, 95%, CI -1.91 to 0.10, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 75%, three studies). The meta-synthesis results of 11 qualitative studies show that Balint groups have a positive effect on doctors’ doctor–patient communication, empathy, psychological adjustment, and team cooperation abilities.</p> Conclusion <p>Balint groups may contribute to improving doctor‒patient relationships. We suggest caution and advocate for multicenter large-sample randomized controlled trials with low risk-of-bias design to avoid evidence bias.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Balint groups for improving the ability of doctors and medical students to manage the doctor–patient relationship: a systematic review, quantitative meta-analysis and qualitative meta-synthesis of intervention studies

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月3日

查看全文
  • Luxinyi Xu,
  • Xiaomei Cui,
  • Yu Wang,
  • Chuanchuan He,
  • Lijun Dong,
  • Dongmei Li,
  • Yinglong Li,
  • Yuan Yao,
  • Liqin Shan,
  • Zhengfen Xu

摘要

Objective

Balint groups are a crucial method for improving the relationship between medical students/doctors and patients. Nevertheless, no review has examined the effects of Balint groups in this regard. This study aimed to conduct quantitative meta-analyses and qualitative meta-syntheses based on a systematic review to provide references for improving doctor‒patient relationships.

Methods

We searched six databases from inception through October 2024. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and quality assessment. Quantitative data were analyzed using meta-analysis methods with standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) in RevMan 5.4.1, while qualitative results were summarized using meta-synthesis methods.

Results

A total of 56 studies were included, including 45 quantitative studies and 11 qualitative studies. Two, fifty-one, and three studies were rated as having a low risk of bias, unclear risk or some concerns, and high risk of bias, respectively. Thirteen quantitative studies were included in the meta-analyses. Compared with those in the control group, participants in the Balint group had higher communication scores and empathy scores and lower anxiety scores (SMD = 1.26, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.56, I2 = 0%, five studies; SMD = 2.40, 95% CI 1.31 to 3.49, I2 = 96%, six studies; SMD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.19, I2 = 71%, three studies). Participants who received the Balint intervention had significantly lower burnout scores in emotional exhaustion and reduced personal accomplishment among healthcare workers post-intervention compared with pre-intervention (SMD = -1.62, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.03, I2 = 88%, three studies; SMD = -1.22, 95% CI -2.26 to -0.17, I2 = 74%, three studies), while no significant change was saw in cynicism (SMD = -0.90, 95%, CI -1.91 to 0.10, I2 = 75%, three studies). The meta-synthesis results of 11 qualitative studies show that Balint groups have a positive effect on doctors’ doctor–patient communication, empathy, psychological adjustment, and team cooperation abilities.

Conclusion

Balint groups may contribute to improving doctor‒patient relationships. We suggest caution and advocate for multicenter large-sample randomized controlled trials with low risk-of-bias design to avoid evidence bias.