SynthesisBMC medicine2026
Is behaviour change communication guidance for general practice healthcare professionals evidence based? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2026. 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.
- Reliable Assessment of Healthcare Procedures: A Comparison of On-Site and Video-Based Methods.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough guidance for primary care professionals on how to communicate with patients about health behaviour change is prevalent, the evidential base for this guidance is unclear. We aimed to systematically review the current guidance for general practice healthcare professionals on how to communicate about health behaviour change with patients, and ascertain what evidence underpins these.
methodsIn this systematic review without meta-analysis (SWiM), we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science on 23rd June 2023. We also searched national guidelines, training, and magazines aimed at providing behaviour change communication guidance for clinicians, on 6th August 2023. Eligible sources were resources providing health behaviour change communication guidance for healthcare professionals in general practice. Two reviewers screened sources for inclusion. Once included, one reviewer extracted relevant communication recommendations from each document. For each communication recommendation, one reviewer identified the presence or absence of citations to supporting evidence. Citations were then examined and classified by relevance. The key outcome measure was the number of communication recommendations supported by evidence and relevance of the supporting evidence cited.
resultsAcross 1163 communication recommendations identified, 677/1163 (58.2%) included one or more citations, totalling 3640 citations. Of these, 1432/3640 (39.3%) were considered relevant. Of 1163 specific communication recommendations identified, 233/1163 (20.0%) used exclusively relevant evidence sources, whilst 61 (5.2%) used exclusively irrelevant evidence sources. Four hundred thirty-one (37.0%) recommendations included at least 1 relevant citation.
conclusionsGuidance aimed at supporting healthcare professionals to communicate about behaviour change with their patients is rarely clearly substantiated with a citation to relevant supporting evidence. Where evidence is provided, it is rarely explicitly relevant to the claim in the guidance which cited it. Given that communication is fundamental to a range of crucial healthcare outcomes, guidance should draw on available evidence to better support healthcare professionals. Further research should examine the evidence underpinning other communication guidance. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Schwarze-Chintapatla A, Livingstone-Banks J & Albury C. What evidence underpins communication guidance regarding behaviour changes for healthcare professionals within general practice: A systematic review. PROTOCOL: Open Science Framework (2024).
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.