ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Understanding shared decision-making among patients with limited health literacy: a realist review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 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
Abstract
backgroundOver a quarter of adults in Europe have limited health literacy (LHL). LHL hampers their ability to find, understand, and implement medical information, resulting in poorer health outcomes. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that enhances communication and personalised care and encourages patient involvement, can mitigate the challenges individuals with LHL face. However, healthcare providers often struggle to recognise and effectively engage these patients in SDM. This realist review aims to understand how, why, for whom, and under what circumstances SDM does or does not work for patients with LHL.
methodsRealist research provides a framework to understand how and why interventions work in specific contexts by uncovering underlying mechanisms. A realist approach is particularly suited for assessing complex social interventions like SDM. Our realist review, structured in three phases, focuses on developing and refining initial rough programme theories (IRPTs) in the form of context-mechanism-outcome configurations. Phase 1, now complete, involved defining the review scope and developing IRPTs enriched by the feedback of experts in realist-informed research methodologies. Phase 2 will include searching, selecting, and appraising the literature. In phase 3, we will focus on data extraction, analysis, and synthesis to further refine programme theories through stakeholder engagement, including patients with LHL and healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: This realist review will provide valuable insights for optimising SDM interventions for patients with LHL, ultimately leading to greater inclusivity and engagement in healthcare and improved health outcomes for this vulnerable group. By elucidating the mechanisms at play, we can tailor these interventions to various contexts, enhancing their effectiveness and generalisability. This protocol presents not only the IRPTs but also provides a detailed description of the methods for the planned realist review. The results of the realist review will inform a subsequent randomised controlled trial and further refine programme theories through a realist evaluation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024594762.
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.