ReviewThe Ulster medical journal2022
Comparison of innovative communication approaches in nutrition to promote and improve health literacy.
Review in The Ulster medical journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Pooled it
- Verbal Probability Terms for Communicating Clinical Risk - a Systematic Review.The Ulster medical journal · 2024Pooled it
- Diet-Related Health Recommender Systems for Patients With Chronic Health Conditions: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Nutrition literacy and socio-demographic determinants among Chinese women of childbearing age.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Digital Health Literacy Among Immigrants in Spain: Implications for Health Equity and Policies.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The translation of scientific evidence into guidelines and advice is a fundamental aspect of scientific communication within nutrition and dietetics. For communication to be effective for all patients, health literacy (HL) must be considered, i.e. an individual's capacity to obtain, comprehend and utilise information to empower decision-making and promote their own health. HL levels are varied and difficult to judge on an individual basis and have not been quantified, thus not giving a population mean HL competency indication. It has been evidenced that most of the working age population in England cannot comprehend healthcare materials due to complexity, thereby promoting a need for agreed readability thresholds for written healthcare information. A wide range of modalities within dietetics are used to communicate to a varied audience with the primary form written, e.g. journal articles, plain language summaries and leaflets. Audio/visual and digital communications are increasing in dietetic care and welcomed by patients; however, the effectiveness of such approaches has not been studied thoroughly and digital exclusion remains a concern. Communication considering a patient's HL level leads to empowerment which is key to effective management of chronic diseases with a high treatment burden. Therefore; this review will focus on the importance of modalities used to communicate science in nutrition to ensure they are appropriate in relation to Health Literacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35722219PMC9200103What 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.