ArticleBMC health services research2026
Clear Conversations: a mixed methods evaluation of a verbal health literacy initiative for health service providers.
Article in BMC health services research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding health information can be difficult, which can limit people's ability to manage their health and adopt healthy practices, leading to poorer health outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate a verbal health literacy training initiative designed to support clear conversations between health service providers and users. The initiative incorporated Teach-back, Chunk and Check, Simple Language, and Open Questions, alongside implementation support from a health literacy officer.
methodsA concurrent mixed-methods evaluation was conducted across two health programmes serving a population of approximately one million people in the United Kingdom: A Pulmonary Rehabilitation Programme delivered by five physiotherapists in a hospital setting, and a Weight Management Programme delivered by 12 health improvement advisors within a regional government authority. The evaluation comprised five components: (1) Surveys of 110 service providers' perceptions of the training; (2) Observations of 11 service providers before and after training; (3) Two focus groups with 11 service providers six months post-training; (4) Change in 73 service users' health literacy levels using two domains of the Health Literacy Questionnaire; (5) Change in service users' health and wellbeing between baseline and programme completion.
resultsService providers found the initiative useful. Changes in communication practice, such as increased use of Chunk and Check and Open Questions, were observed. Both programmes were delivered in group settings. Teach-back was reported to be challenging to apply in this context but beneficial in one-to-one interactions in wider practice. Implementation support from the health literacy officer was helpful but difficult to deliver to busy teams. Service users' health literacy levels improved by the end of their programme, but there was no evidence that the initiative improved health and wellbeing outcomes. For example, no significant difference was observed in the primary outcome for Weight Management participants in the intervention group compared with controls (0.2 kg, - 2.3 to 1.9; p = 0.84).
conclusionsIn this small evaluation, the initiative was well received and enhanced service providers' communication skills. Further evaluation of a strengthened initiative should focus on controlled before-and-after designs using larger samples to determine the effect on service users' health literacy and health and wellbeing outcomes.
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.