Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31647001›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2019

'Teach-back' is a simple communication tool that improves disease knowledge in people with chronic hepatitis B - a pilot randomized controlled study.

Sophie Tran, Gabrielle Bennett, Jacqui Richmond, Tin Nguyen, Marno Ryan, Thai Hong, Jessica Howell, Barbara Demediuk, Paul Desmond, Sally Bell and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Effects of the teach-back method among cancer patients: a systematic review of the literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

11 authors.

Sophie TranDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia. sophie.tran@svha.org.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3051-6660
Gabrielle BennettDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Jacqui RichmondDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Tin NguyenDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Marno RyanDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Thai HongDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Jessica HowellDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Barbara DemediukDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Paul DesmondDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Sally BellDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia.
Alexander ThompsonDepartment of Gastroenterology, St. Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, Level 4 Daly Wing, 35 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy, Victoria, 3065, Australia. alexander.thompson@svha.org.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe low diagnosis rate and poor access to clinical care among people with CHB is a major barrier to reducing HBV-related morbidity and mortality in Australia. One explanation for this is a lack of disease-specific knowledge among people living with CHB. Health literacy has been shown to be important for maximising engagement with medical care and adherence to recommended management. The 'teach-back' communication strategy has been shown to improve patient understanding in other clinical areas. This study aims to assess disease-specific knowledge; and evaluate the efficacy of the teach-back strategy for improving HBV knowledge, compared to a standard medical consultation.

methodA randomized pilot study was conducted between February and June 2017. Participants were recruited from the liver clinic at an inner-city tertiary hospital. English-speaking patients aged ≥18 years and diagnosed with CHB were eligible for the study. Participants were randomised to a control group (medical specialist appointment) and intervention group (teach-back). Knowledge was assessed at baseline, immediately post-intervention and at one month using a validated questionnaire. Participants in the intervention group received a one-on-one teach-back session about CHB. The main outcome measure was a combined knowledge score of the domains assessed - transmission, natural history, epidemiology and prevention and clinical management.

resultsSeventy participants were recruited (control n = 32, teach-back n = 38). Mean baseline knowledge score was 19.1 out of 23 with 55 (79%) participants scoring ≥17.3 (defined as high knowledge) (7). Sub-analysis of CHB knowledge domains identified focal deficits concerning transmission and whether HBV is curable. Knowledge scores were found to be positively associated with English proficiency and antiviral treatment experience (p < 0.05). Teach-back was associated with a significant increase in CHB knowledge at early recall (22.5 vs 18.7, p < 0.001) and at 1-month follow-up (21.9 vs 18.7, p < 0.001); there was no improvement in CHB knowledge associated with standard clinical consultant (early recall: 19.6 vs 19.4, p = 0.49, one-month follow-up: 19.5 vs 19.4, p = 0.94).

conclusionIn a tertiary hospital liver clinic population, baseline knowledge about CHB was good, but there were focal deficits concerning transmission and potential for cure. Teach-back was associated with improvement in CHB knowledge and it is a simple communication tool suitable for incorporation into a standard medical consultation.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultAustraliaFemaleHepatitis B, ChronicHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPilot ProjectsSurveys and QuestionnairesCirrhosisCommunicationEducationHBVHealth literacyLiverTeach-backThis study has been retrospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Trials Registry on 29th March 2019 - ACTRN12619000512123.

Identifiers

PMID31647001
PMCPMC6813056

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.