Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30979368›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2019

Towards appropriate information provision for and decision-making with patients with limited health literacy in hospital-based palliative care in Western countries: a scoping review into available communication strategies and tools for healthcare providers.

Janneke Noordman, Liesbeth van Vliet, Menno Kaunang, Maria van den Muijsenbergh, Gudule Boland, Sandra van Dulmen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Janneke NoordmanNivel, Netherlands institute for health services research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands. j.noordman@nivel.nl.
Liesbeth van VlietNivel, Netherlands institute for health services research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Menno KaunangNivel, Netherlands institute for health services research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maria van den MuijsenberghDepartment of Primary and Community Care, Radboud university medical center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Gudule BolandPharos, Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Sandra van DulmenNivel, Netherlands institute for health services research, P.O. Box 1568, 3500 BN, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

KWF Kankerbestrijding 10392ZonMw 844001403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPerson-centred palliative care poses high demands on professionals and patients regarding appropriate and effective communication and informed decision-making. This is even more so for patients with limited health literacy, as they lack the necessary skills to find, understand and apply information about their health and healthcare. Recognizing patients with limited health literacy and adapting the communication, information provision and decision-making process to their skills and needs is essential to achieve desired person-centred palliative care. The aim of this study is to summarize available strategies and tools for healthcare providers towards successful communication, information provision and/or shared decision-making in supporting patients with limited health literacy in hospital-based palliative care in Western countries.

methodsA scoping review was conducted. First, databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched. Next, grey literature was examined using several online databases and by contacting national experts. In addition, all references of included studies were checked.

resultsFive studies were included that showed that there are face-to-face, written as well as online strategies available for healthcare providers to support communication, information provision and, to a lesser extent, (shared) decision-making in palliative care for patients with limited health literacy. Strategies that were mentioned several times were: teach-back method, jargon-free communication and developing and testing materials with patients with limited health literacy, among others. Two supporting tools were found: patient decision aids and question prompt lists.

conclusionsTo guarantee high quality person-centred palliative care, the role of health literacy should be considered. Although there are several strategies available for healthcare providers to facilitate such communication, only few tools are offered. Moreover, the strategies and tools appear not specific for the setting of palliative care, but seem helpful for providers to support the communication, information provision and decision making with patients with limited health literacy in general. Future research should focus on which strategies or tools are (most) effective in supporting patients with limited health literacy in palliative care, and the implementation of these strategies and tools in practice.

Indexed as

Decision MakingCommunicationHealth LiteracyHumansPalliative CareProfessional-Patient RelationsHealthcare providersHospitalLimited health literacyPalliative carePatientsReview literature

Identifiers

PMID30979368
PMCPMC6461806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.