Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41362582›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2026

Evaluation of teach-back and plain language acceptability during patient interactions.

Andressa A Sleiman, Erin M Richard, Daniel Gonzales-Portillo, Sarah Tallman, Nicole E Gravina

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andressa A SleimanSchool of Behavior Analysis, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, USA.
Erin M RichardSchool of Leadership and Human Resource Development, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA.
Daniel Gonzales-PortilloDepartment of Osteopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, USA.
Sarah TallmanDepartment of Internal Medicine, The Iowa Clinic, West Des Moines, USA.
Nicole E GravinaDepartment of Psychology, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This research investigated participants' acceptability of clinicians' use of teach-back and plain language. Methods: A 30-min survey was administered to 162 undergraduates who watched and rated two doctor-patient interactions explaining multiple sclerosis and diabetes.Interactions included jargon only, jargon+teach-back, plain language only, and plain language+teach-back. Results: The results indicated a significant preference for plain language over jargon in both multiple sclerosis [F(1, 157) = 57.73, Conclusion: Clinicians should avoid excessive jargon and actively engage patients by employing teach-back questions, especially when discussing unfamiliar information. Innovation: This study advances clinician-patient communication by examining the acceptability of teach-back rather than its effectiveness, addressing a key gap in understanding when such strategies are likely to be adopted in practice. Findings challenge assumptions that teach-back inherently ensures comprehension, emphasizing the necessity of plain-language delivery and offering a replicable framework for evaluating patient acceptability in real-world contexts.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityPatient-centered carePatient-clinician interactionsPlain languageTeach-back

Identifiers

PMID41362582
PMCPMC12681931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.