ArticleDigital health
Podcast-driven insights into Charles Bonnet Syndrome: Impact on self-management strategies and communication.
Article in Digital health. 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.
- Charles Bonnet Syndrome: associations between psychosocial measures and visual hallucination characteristics in the visually impaired.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The impact of an educational podcast on emotional wellbeing and attitudes towards Charles Bonnet syndrome hallucinations.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study compared the effectiveness of two educational podcasts on behavioural responses to Charles Bonnet Syndrome (CBS) hallucinations. One podcast provided general information and management strategies, while the other included the same content but also encouraged participants to actively interact with their hallucinations (e.g. by touching them). Methods: In this double-masked, two-arm randomised comparative study, participants were recruited through charities and social media. All participants completed a baseline survey assessing hallucination frequency and severity. They were then randomised to receive either the education podcast or the interaction podcast. Approximately three weeks after listening, participants completed a follow-up survey. The primary outcome asked, 'Have you made any changes to how you respond to your hallucinations since listening to the podcast?' Secondary outcomes included which strategies participants had tried and their perceived helpfulness, whether they were inspired to try them, changes in hallucination characteristics, perceptions of the podcast's usefulness and enjoyability, and whether they had disclosed their symptoms to new people. Results: Fifty-four people with CBS (76% female; 70% aged >65 years) participated. Twenty-eight received the education podcast and 26 received the interaction podcast. Across the whole cohort, 80% reported no change in how they responded to hallucinations, with no statistically significant difference between the two podcast groups ( Conclusions: No significant difference was found between the two podcast in altering behavioural responses. However, both encouraged uptake of self-management strategies, suggesting that podcasts may be a useful support tool for individuals with CBS. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term impact.
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.