ArticleThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing2023
A State-of-the-Art Review of Teach-Back for Patients and Families With Heart Failure: How Far Have We Come?
Article in The Journal of cardiovascular nursing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current status and global trends in self-care among patients with heart failure: challenges and opportunities.The journal of cardiovascular aging · 2026Article
- Use of the Teach-Back Method in Adults with Cardiovascular Disease: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Development and Rasch calibration of the Breast Cancer Symptom Help-Seeking Capability Scale (BCSHC).Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- A SARS-CoV-2 minimum data standard to support national serology reporting.Annals of clinical biochemistry · 2024Article
- Predictors of Engagement in a Virtual Support Intervention for Caregivers of Adults With Heart Failure: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Study.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHeart failure (HF) prevalence has risen for more than a decade. Effective patient and family education strategies for HF are needed on a global scale. One widely used method of education is the teach-back method, where learners are provided information, then their understanding assessed by "teaching it back" to the educator. PURPOSE: This state-of-the-art review article seeks to examine the evidence focusing on the teach-back method of patient education and patient outcomes. Specifically, this article describes (1) the teach-back process, (2) teach-back's effect on patient outcomes, (3) teach-back in the context of family care partners, and (4) recommendations for future research and practice.
conclusionsStudy investigators report the use of teach-back, but few describe how teach-back was utilized. Study designs vary widely, with few having a comparison group, making conclusions across studies challenging. The effect of teach-back on patient outcomes is mixed. Some studies showed fewer HF readmissions after education using teach-back, but different times of measurement obscure understanding of longitudinal effects. Heart failure knowledge improved across most studies after teach-back interventions; however, results related to HF self-care were mixed. Despite family care partner involvement in several studies, how they were included in teach-back or the associated effects are unclear. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Future clinical trials that evaluate the effect of teach-back education on patient outcomes, such as short- and long-term readmission rates, biomarkers, and psychological measures, are needed, as patient education is the foundation for self-care and health-related behaviors.
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.