ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Shared reading as an intervention to improve health and well-being in adults: a scoping review.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Feasibility of an Online Shared Reading Intervention in Survivors of Gynecological Cancer: Protocol for a Multiple-Baseline Single-Case Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- 'Equal footing, equal voice': Recognition of self and other in Shared Reading for people with lived experience of mental distress.Health (London, England : 1997) · 2026Article
- AI-mediated participatory reading and relational well-being: a conceptual framework from contemporary China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Shared reading (SR) is a group reading concept consisting of weekly meetings led by a trained facilitator where literary fiction and poetry is read aloud and discussed. SR requires no previous knowledge or homework and has been tried out as a health intervention to different vulnerable populations. Objectives: The present study undertook a scoping review of research evaluating SR as an intervention to improve health and/or well-being in adults. The aim was to map the existing knowledge, identify research gaps, and suggest how these gaps can be addressed in future research. Method: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for scoping reviews. Online data bases were searched for publications on SR published between Jan 1, 2005, and Dec 31, 2024. Studies were eligible if they used SR as an intervention for adults, reported outcomes for health and/or well-being, and were published in Danish, English, Norwegian, or Swedish in peer-reviewed journals. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies could be included. Results: The search returned 179 records. We identified 15 studies, all written in English, that met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted in UK (67%; Conclusion: SR was reported to be a feasible and promising intervention for several groups in different settings. However, available evidence is limited, and research gaps exist. Current findings can serve as a foundation for future studies with larger samples and longer follow-up.
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.