Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39797671›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2024

Using the communication technique of Clean Language in healthcare: an exploratory survey.

Saskie Dorman, Judy Rees

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Saskie DormanPalliative Medicine, University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, UK saskie.dorman@nhs.net.ORCID 0009-0007-6803-9859
Judy ReesConversaurus, Richmond, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Communication is fundamental to effective healthcare. Misunderstandings can increase distress, risks and costs. Clean Language is a precision questioning technique-with specific Clean Language questions which minimise assumptions and bias. It is used in a variety of contexts but is under-researched in healthcare. An exploratory online survey was undertaken to develop an understanding of who uses Clean Language in healthcare, in what kind of roles, settings, contexts and what impacts they identify. 32 people responded, of whom 23 reported using Clean Language in a range of contexts, individually and in groups; 21 people had received training in Clean Language. Participants worked in a wide range of roles, specialties and settings, both clinical and non-clinical, and described Clean Language enabling engagement and encouragement; confidence, knowledge and power; surfacing and handling emotion and conflict in a safe way; clarity, depth, understanding and insights. Some respondents noted that Clean Language is not always intuitive and takes practice but can become natural and enjoyable to use. Communication skills training could include Clean Language questions as one way to enhance understanding. Further exploration of the impact of Clean Language, including from the perspective of patients and families, is warranted.

Indexed as

CommunicationDelivery of Health CareLanguageAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesCommunicationContinuing education, continuing professional developmentPatient-centred careQualitative researchSurveys

Identifiers

PMID39797671
PMCPMC11752020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.