ArticleHealth information and libraries journal2025
Barriers to health literacy of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A qualitative approach.
Article in Health information and libraries journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Barriers to health literacy of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: A qualitative approach.Health information and libraries journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiving with cardiac implantable electronic devices requires patients to apply information skills.
objectiveTo explore barriers to the health literacy of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.
methodsThis descriptive, qualitative study was conducted with 18 patients. Data were gathered via semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. Content analysis was applied to the data. The results were reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).
resultsTwo themes emerged: 'Floundering patients'; 'Lackadaisical patients'. First theme involved four subthemes: 'An enormous unmet need for information'; 'The information source: The doctor'; 'Communication issues'; 'Preferences'. Second theme included two subthemes: 'Dependence on doctor' and 'Dependence on others'. DISCUSSION: Theme one revealed that patients found it difficult to evaluate the health information and assumed the doctor was the prime source of information, rather than other health professionals who might help provide the necessary education and counselling. Theme two was 'lackadaisical patients', who failed to access information, communicate with the healthcare provider, evaluate information, or take a role in the decision-making process due to their complete trust in doctors and informal caregivers.
conclusionThese results suggested that nurses should play a role in the improvement of patients' health literacy, with the help of health information professionals.
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.