ArticleJournal of medical radiation sciences2022
Lived experiences of radiation therapists using health literacy strategies with patients-A qualitative review using interpretative phenomenological analysis.
Article in Journal of medical radiation sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Continuing Professional Development - Medical Imaging.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2025Article
- Lived experiences of radiation therapists using health literacy strategies with patients-A qualitative review using interpretative phenomenological analysis.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2022Article
- Online Learning to Support Culturally Safe Communication with First Nations Australians in Radiation Therapy: A Pre-Post Intervention Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAdaptive communication is an essential requirement to deliver quality patient-centred care. Determining patients' informational needs and acting on the needs are skills radiation therapists (RTs) employ daily with patients. Learning health literacy (HL) strategies to assist with the informational delivery provides RTs with options to improve patients' understanding of vital radiotherapy treatment information or tasks. This research investigates the lived experiences of RTs from the Illawarra and Shoalhaven Cancer Care Centres in Australia using HL strategies during patient interactions after undertaking HL training workshops.
methodsAn interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) approach was used. Audio-recorded semi-structured interviews were conducted with six RTs. Two reviewers analysed each interview script separately before discussing and constructing substantive and sub-themes.
resultsFour substantive themes were constructed: RT personal attitudes and responses to HL, HL strategies used by RTs, patient associated HL needs and barriers when addressing patient HL needs. RTs were either person- or process-focussed during patient interactions. It was identified that information is provided to patients according to how RTs themselves like to learn new information.
conclusionThis research has allowed an opportunity to inquire into the lived experiences of RTs implementing HL strategies when providing information to patients. While RTs may be person or process-focussed, the patient's needs are always prioritised when providing information, which ultimately results in patient understanding and increased engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.