Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39985310›Full record

ReviewHealth education research2025

A scoping review of visual communication of written patient health information preferences including a Māori perspective.

A Caisip, L Kremer, L Edmonds, A Young

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health education research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

A CaisipSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 18 Frederick Street, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
L KremerSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 18 Frederick Street, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.
L EdmondsTe Tātai Hauora o Hine, Center for Women's Health Research, Victoria University of Wellington, 44 Kelburn Parade, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
A YoungSchool of Pharmacy, University of Otago, 18 Frederick Street, Dunedin 9054, New Zealand.

Funding

Division of Health Sciences, University of Otago Honors Scholarship, 2024
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review examines the visual design elements of written patient information (WPI), specifically focusing on imagery, colour, layout and content presentation, and their impact on health information communication, understanding, behaviour and preferences among patients. Understanding patient preferences allows for patient-informed WPI design, which is important for Māori (Indigenous peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand) living in a colonial society. Nine studies were analysed, primarily investigating the integration of visual illustrations within WPI. Participants generally favoured the inclusion of images alongside text, finding them instrumental in enhancing comprehension and making health information more approachable. The preference for simpler and less detailed visuals, such as cartoons, was highlighted, although there was variability depending on literacy levels and cultural backgrounds. The use of colour, layout features (e.g. font type and white space) and content framing (e.g. positive versus negative framing of risk information) were explored for their effects on information reception and behavioural outcomes. Currently, there is a paucity of literature on Māori preferences and requires further research. Overall, this scoping review highlights the importance of designing WPIs with visual elements that cater to diverse literacy levels and cultural preferences to optimize communication effectiveness and patient engagement.

Indexed as

Maori PeoplePatient PreferenceCommunicationHealth LiteracyHumansNew ZealandPatient Education as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39985310
PMCPMC11845866

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.