ArticlePloS one2026
Use of health communication materials by health-care providers for health education in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealth communication materials (HCMs) are widely used to support health education and promotion activities in clinical and community settings. However, evidence regarding their use by healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) remains inconsistent. This scoping review aims to systematically map and describe the existing literature on the utilization of health communication materials by healthcare providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
methodsThis scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR reporting guideline and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) framework for scoping reviews. The studies were searched from database inception to September 2025 using electronic databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Hinari) were searched, and studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria aligned with the Population-Concept-Context framework. Data extraction was performed using a standardized form, and findings were narratively synthesized spreadsheet by two independent reviewers. Findings were synthesized using descriptive numerical analysis and thematic analysis.
resultA total of 728 records were identified. 715 were screened after removing duplicates. Following title/abstract and full-text review, 18 studies were included. HCMs, including printed, audiovisual, and electronic tools, were covered in these studies. NGO support, perceived utility, and material accessibility were facilitators, while organizational limitations, patient disengagement, limited availability, and inadequate training were major obstacles.
conclusionThe use of health communication materials by healthcare providers in LMICs is influenced by contextual, institutional, and individual factors. While HCMs are widely available in many settings, their use remains inconsistent and is influenced by systemic challenges. Strengthening accessibility, provider training, culturally appropriate content, and integration into routine care may support improved implementation.
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.