Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30238405›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2018

Hospitalized Patients' Knowledge of Care: a Systematic Review.

Arielle E Sommer, Blair P Golden, Jonna Peterson, Claire A Knoten, Lyndsey O'Hara, Kevin J O'Leary

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Who Is Best to Test? A Systematic Review of Chlamydia Infections in Switzerland.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arielle E SommerDepartment of Medicine, Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. asommer@mednet.ucla.edu.
Blair P GoldenDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Jonna PetersonGalter Health Sciences Library and Learning Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Claire A KnotenNorthwestern Memorial Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA.
Lyndsey O'HaraDivision of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Kevin J O'LearyDivision of Hospital Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Northwestern University · USNorthwestern Medicine · USRonald Reagan UCLA Medical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients' comprehension of their medical conditions is fundamental to patient-centered care. Hospitalizations present opportunities to educate patients but also challenges to patient comprehension given the complexity and rapid pace of clinical care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the current state of inpatients' knowledge of their hospitalization, assess the methods used to determine patient comprehension, and appraise the effects of interventions on improving knowledge.

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published from January 1, 1995 through December 11, 2017. Eligible studies included patients under inpatient or observation status on internal medicine, family medicine, or neurology services. We extracted study characteristics (author, year, country, study design, sample size, patient characteristics, methods, intervention, primary endpoints, results) in a standardized fashion. The quality of observational studies was assessed using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observation Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and the quality of interventional studies was assessed using adapted EPOC criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration.

resultsTwenty-eight studies met the criteria for inclusion, including 17 observational studies and 11 interventional studies. Patient knowledge of all aspects of their hospitalization was poor and patients often overestimated their knowledge. Older patients and those with lower education levels were more likely to have poorer knowledge. Intervention methods varied, but generally showed improvements in patient knowledge. Few interventional studies assessed the effect on health behaviors or outcomes and those that did were often underpowered. DISCUSSION: Clinicians should be aware that comprehension is often poor among hospitalized patients, especially in those with lower education and advanced age. Our results are limited by overall poor quality of interventional studies. Future research should use objective, standardized measures of patient comprehension and interventions should be multifaceted in approach, focusing on knowledge improvement while also addressing other factors influencing outcomes.

Indexed as

Health BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHospitalizationCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansObservational Studies as TopicProspective Studiescomprehensionhealth knowledgehospitalizationpatient adherencepatient-centered carepatient education

Identifiers

PMID30238405
PMCPMC6258610
OpenAlexW2891388179

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.