ArticlePloS one2025
Option talk and risk communication with people with limited health literacy: A qualitative focus group study with key stakeholders.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
purposeTo explore stakeholders' views on acceptable and feasible strategies for discussion of treatment options and risk communication with people with limited health literacy (LHL in the context of shared decision-making (SDM)).
methodsThis qualitative descriptive study used purposive sampling to conduct focus groups with stakeholders including experts in health literacy, SDM, or risk communication (RC); experienced General Practitioners (GPs); and individuals with LHL. Each session included a brief presentation defining SDM, option talk, and RC, followed by an introduction to various RC strategies and decision aids to facilitate discussion. Verbatim transcripts were analysed by two independent researchers using inductive and deductive content analysis.
resultsFive focus groups were conducted, involving experts (two FGs, n = 5 and n = 6), GPs (one FG, n = 8) and people with LHL (two FGs, 2x n = 3). Experts and GPs emphasised the need to tailor communication to the patient's context and noted challenges in identifying patients with LHL. All participants highlighted the importance of using illustrations of treatment options (e.g., knee injections) to support the discussion of options. Views on the level of detail required for RC varied, with some GPs questioning whether RC was understandable to people with LHL. Most people with LHL preferred RC in natural frequencies and icon arrays but noted that RC can fan fear. GPs found contextualisation (e.g., comparing the probability of a treatment outcome with the probability of a car accident) a helpful strategy, but patients found it confusing. Decision aids were seen as supportive for RC. Overall, people with LHL preferred their doctor to discuss options face-face with them, using a layered step-by-step manner, adding details on RC as preferred by patients.
conclusionSDM for people with LHL benefits from a tailored, layered approach with visual aids. These strategies are potentially useful for all patients, but further research is needed to confirm this.
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.