ArticleBMC health services research2025
Process evaluation of a co-design and implementation study to improve professional health literacy in a regional care hospital (PIKoG): a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Improving Work-Related Challenges in Psychiatric-Psychosomatic Clinics: Study Protocol for an Internet-Based Needs Assessment and Co-Design of a Training.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn connection with a hospital stay, patients have to make important health-related decisions. Adequately responding to the needs of patients requires good communication skills of healthcare professionals within healthcare organizations. The PIKoG project (As made for us - Improving professional health literacy in hospitals) aimed at improving professional health literacy by implementing participatory health literacy training and supporting measures in a hospital setting. This study aimed to analyze processes supporting and hindering the implementation of the complex intervention.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted, including focus group interviews and a paper-pencil survey with healthcare professionals. Data was combined and analyzed using categories derived from the Medical Research Council's guidance on process evaluation: (1) Implementation, (2) Mechanisms of impact, and (3) Context. Interview data were analyzed using structured qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz. Survey data were analyzed descriptively.
resultsOne of three on-site, full-day health literacy training sessions was offered weekly. Supporting measures were implemented step by step over the course of a year. Both the training and the supporting measures were rated positively overall, but they could not be effectively integrated into daily routines. The COVID-19 pandemic as well as resource constraints adversely affected implementation by altering workflows, increasing stress levels and shifting priorities. The participatory approach and individual change agents fostered the implementation of the complex intervention. Nurses were reached the most, while physicians engaged least in the interventions. Adaptations during the implementation increased the use of the implemented measures and gave rise to ideas for future improvements.
conclusionThe study highlights the challenges involved in implementing a complex intervention supporting professional health literacy in an organization and stresses the importance of considering available resources, recruiting opinion leaders, and being responsive to the needs of different groups. While the participatory co-design development approach was found to be valuable, it does not guarantee successful organizational change in times when hospitals face multiple challenges. Subsequent studies should therefore focus on investigating the capacities of healthcare organizations for organization-wide improvement processes and identify how healthcare organizations can be innovative and patient-centered even in the presence of extremely difficult contextual conditions.
trial registrationDRKS00019830, since 16th of April 2020.
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.