SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2026
Teach-Back in Clinical Communication: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Disparities in GLP-1RA and SGLT2i Uptake: a Systematic Review and an Equity-First Framework for Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Care.Current cardiology reports · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTeach-back has been identified as a high-quality clinical communication strategy. Our aim was to synthesize current literature on teach-back effectiveness.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete databases to identify relevant studies published between 2018 and 2026. We also included pre-2018 studies identified in prior systematic reviews. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved adult patients and/or care partners, delivered teach-back in a single encounter, had a comparator group, and reported proximal/intermediate patient outcomes (as defined in our conceptual model). Two independent investigators screened each citation at the title/abstract and full-text levels and assessed risk of bias. Study characteristics and results were extracted. When meta-analysis was performed, we used standardized mean differences (SMD) to estimate summary effects. We assessed certainty of evidence (COE) using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains.
resultsOur systematic review included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1985 participants. Across 9 RCTs assessing knowledge acquisition, conceptual inconsistencies precluded meta-analysis. Overall, there was no clear pattern of the effect of teach-back on knowledge (very low COE). In a meta-analysis of 5 RCTs assessing self-efficacy (416 participants), we found that teach-back interventions led to a large increase in self-efficacy relative to usual care (SMD = 2.40; 95%CI 0.37-4.44) (very low COE). In a meta-analysis of 7 RCTs assessing adherence to health behaviors (571 participants), teach-back interventions led to a large increase in adherence (SMD = 1.04; 95%CI 0.45-1.64) (low COE). Meta-analyses for both self-efficacy and adherence had large confidence intervals that ranged from small to large effect sizes and had substantial heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did not identify a clear benefit of teach-back on knowledge acquisition but did find evidence that teach-back improves self-efficacy and self-reported, short-term adherence to health behaviors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42693371What 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.