Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32559237›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Communication and shared decision-making with patients with limited health literacy; helpful strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement reported by hospital-based palliative care providers.

Ruud Roodbeen, Astrid Vreke, Gudule Boland, Jany Rademakers, Maria van den Muijsenbergh, Janneke Noordman, Sandra van Dulmen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Identifying patient-centered communication barriers in palliative care.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Barriers to and Facilitators of Shared Decision-Making Implementation in Fertility Preservation for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

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

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

7 authors.

Ruud RoodbeenNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7315-4367
Astrid VrekeNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Gudule BolandPharos, Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jany RademakersNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Maria van den MuijsenberghPharos, Dutch Centre of Expertise on Health Disparities, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Janneke NoordmanNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Sandra van DulmenNivel (Netherlands institute for health services research), Utrecht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication and shared decision-making (SDM) are essential to patient-centered care. Hospital-based palliative care with patients with limited health literacy (LHL) poses particular demands on communication. In this context, patients' emotions and vulnerable condition impact their skills to obtain, understand, process and apply information about health and healthcare even more. If healthcare providers (HCPs) meet these demands, it could enhance communication. In this study, HCPs were interviewed and asked for their strategies, barriers and suggestions for improvement regarding communication and SDM with LHL patients in hospital-based palliative care.

methodsA qualitative interview study was conducted in 2018 in four Dutch hospitals with 17 HCPs-11 physicians and 6 nurses. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis.

resultsIn general HCPs recognized limited literacy as a concept, however, they did not recognize limited health literacy. Regarding SDM some HCPs were strong advocates, others did not believe in SDM as a concept and perceived it as unfeasible. Furthermore, five themes, acting as either strategies, barriers or suggestions for improvement emerged from the interviews: 1) time management; 2) HCPs' communication skills; 3) information tailoring; 4) characteristics of patients and significant others; 5) the content of the medical information.

conclusionsAccording to HCPs, more time to communicate with their patients could resolve the most prominent barriers emerged from this study. Further research should investigate the organizational possibilities for this and the actual effectiveness of additional time on effective communication and SDM. Additionally, more awareness for the concept of LHL is needed as a precondition for recognizing LHL. Furthermore, future research should be directed towards opportunities for tailoring communication, and the extent to which limited knowledge and complex information affect communication and SDM. This study provides first insights into perspectives of HCPs, indicating directions for research on communication, SDM and LHL in hospital-based palliative care.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleNurse-Patient RelationsNursesPalliative CarePatient Education as TopicPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysiciansQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID32559237
PMCPMC7304585

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.