Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35248126›Full record

ReviewPatient safety in surgery2022

Utilizing the "teach-back" method to improve surgical informed consent and shared decision-making: a review.

Kevin D Seely, Jordan A Higgs, Andrew Nigh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Patient safety in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

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

3 authors.

Kevin D SeelyCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, Ivins, UT, 84738, USA. Kevin.seely@rvu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0390-813X
Jordan A HiggsCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, Ivins, UT, 84738, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7613-7650
Andrew NighDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Rocky Vista University, UT, 84738, Ivins, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6050-3676

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The teach-back method is a valuable communication tool that can be employed to improve patient safety and shared decision-making. Its utility in patient care has been studied extensively in many areas of clinical medicine. However, the literature on the use of teach-back in surgical patient education and informed consent is limited. Additionally, there is some ambiguity about the functional definition and performance of the teach-back method in the literature, consequently rendering this valuable tool an enigma. This review examines the current standards and ethics of preoperative informed consent and provides a concise, actionable definition of teach-back. The manner in which teach-back has been implemented in medicine and surgery is then examined in detail. Studies analyzing the use of teach-back in medicine have demonstrated its effectiveness and benefit to patient care. Further study on the use of teach-back to improve preoperative informed consent is supported by the few preliminary trials showing a positive effect after implementing the teach-back method in critical patient interactions.

Indexed as

Informed consentPreoperative educationShared decision-makingSurgeryTeach-back method

Identifiers

PMID35248126
PMCPMC8897923

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.