Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42810767›Full record

ReviewInternational wound journal2026

Empathy as Therapeutic Infrastructure in Wound Care: A Conceptual Synthesis.

Sebastian Probst, Peta Tehan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International wound journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sebastian ProbstGeneva School of Health Science, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9603-1570
Peta TehanSchool of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-2939-0807

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To develop a conceptual understanding of empathy in chronic wound care through synthesis of patient, healthcare professional, and informal carer perspectives. An integrative qualitative synthesis was conducted using empirical and review literature representing multiple stakeholder perspectives in chronic wound care. A reflexive thematic synthesis approach was applied to identify patterns across datasets and develop higher-order conceptual constructs through iterative comparison and abstraction. Rigour was supported through triangulation and reflexive team discussions. Empathy emerged as a multidimensional construct operating across relational, clinical, and organisational levels. Five interconnected themes were identified: relational connection, engagement and adherence, distributed care networks, structural constraints, and emotional labour. These themes informed the concept of empathy as therapeutic infrastructure, conceptualising empathy as a set of interconnected processes underpinning care delivery and care experiences across settings. Empathy in wound care extends beyond interpersonal interaction to function as a foundational component of care systems. Conceptualising empathy as therapeutic infrastructure highlights the importance of embedding empathy within clinical practise, professional education, and organisational structures. This framework provides a foundation for future research and the development of interventions to strengthen person-centred wound care.

Indexed as

EmpathyWound HealingWounds and InjuriesChronic DiseaseHumansPatient-Centered CareQualitative Researchchronic woundsempathyperson‐centred carequalitative synthesistherapeutic relationshipswound management

Identifiers

PMID42810767
PMCPMC13623506

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.