Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18632672›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2008

Interventions before consultations to help patients address their information needs by encouraging question asking: systematic review.

Paul Kinnersley, Adrian Edwards, Kerry Hood, Rebecca Ryan, Hayley Prout, Naomi Cadbury, Fergus MacBeth, Phyllis Butow, Christopher Butler

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03548779 (North Carolina Genomic Evaluation by Next-generation Exome Sequencing, 2), which is not on this map. Cited by 80 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
80citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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.

NCT03548779 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2018, after this paper: background citation

North Carolina Genomic Evaluation by Next-generation Exome Sequencing, 2

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of North Carolina, Chapel HillRan2018 to 2024Enrolled548ConditionsEpilepsy, Seizure, Neuromuscular Diseases, Brain MalformationArmsPre-visit prep, usual care + exome seq
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

80 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Older Patients' Verbal Communication in Interactions With Primary Care Staff: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Ethnography.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2013
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Randomised controlled trial of a brief intervention targeting predominantly non-verbal communication in general practice consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Physician endorsement alone may not enhance question-asking by advanced cancer patients during consultations about palliative care.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2012
    Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial

20 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Paul KinnersleyNeuadd Meirionydd, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4XN. kinnersley@cf.ac.uk
Adrian Edwards
Kerry Hood
Rebecca Ryan
Hayley Prout
Naomi Cadbury
Fergus MacBeth
Phyllis Butow
Christopher Butler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the effects on patients, clinicians, and the healthcare system of interventions before consultations to help patients or their representatives gather information in consultations by question asking.

designSystematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches of seven databases and hand searching of one journal and bibliographies of relevant articles. Review methods Inclusion criteria included randomised controlled trials.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were question asking; patients' anxiety, knowledge, and satisfaction; and length of consultation.

results33 randomised trials of variable quality involving 8244 patients were identified. A few studies showed positive effects. Meta-analyses showed small and statistically significantly increases in question asking (standardised mean difference 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.36) and patients' satisfaction (0.09, 0.03 to 0.16). Non-statistically significant changes occurred in patients' anxiety before consultations (weighted mean difference -1.56, -7.10 to 3.97), patients' anxiety after consultations (standardised mean difference -0.08, -0.22 to 0.06), patients' knowledge (-0.34, -0.94 to 0.25), and length of consultation (0.10, -0.05 to 0.25). Interventions comprising written materials had similar effects on question asking, consultation length, and patients' satisfaction as those comprising the coaching of patients. Interventions with additional training of clinicians had little further effect than those targeted at patients alone for patients' satisfaction and consultation length.

conclusionsInterventions for patients before consultations produce small benefits for patients. This may be because patients and clinicians have established behaviours in consultations that are difficult to change. Alternatively small increases in question asking may not be sufficient to make notable changes to other outcomes.

Indexed as

Patient Education as TopicAnxietyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansNeeds AssessmentPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18632672
PMCPMC2500196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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 OpenQuestion graph.