Trial reportBJS open2026
The impact of a Personal Outpatient Worksheet and Educational Reference form on patient engagement and communication in the surgical clinic: multicentre randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BJS open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn contemporary medicine, time pressure, limited resourcing, human factors, and health literacy are barriers to delivering high-quality patient-centred care. Improving patient engagement may mitigate these barriers. This study evaluated the impact of the Personal Outpatient Worksheet and Educational Reference (POWER) form on patient engagement in the surgical outpatient setting.
methodsA multicentre, randomized clinical trial was conducted in two metropolitan hospitals between July 2022 and January 2025. Patients over 16 attending a general surgical outpatient appointment were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomized into either intervention or control cohorts using a random number generator with 1 : 1 allocation stratified by sex. All participants underwent a surgical outpatient appointment, which was audio-visually recorded. The intervention cohort received a copy of the POWER form, a document with five suggested questions participants could ask during their appointment. The control cohort received standard care without the POWER form. Participants were telephoned one week after their appointment to complete a survey. The primary endpoint was patient recall, assessed by comparing survey responses with the recorded discussion, using an intention to treat analysis.
resultsA total of 143 participants were recruited (71 participants to intervention, 72 to control). Ten participants (five in each group) withdrew and were excluded from analysis of the primary endpoint. Mean recall in the intervention cohort was 88% (95% confidence interval 83 to 92) compared with 31% (26 to 35) in the control group (P < 0.001).
conclusionUse of the POWER form in the general surgical outpatient setting significantly improves patient recall. Registration number: ACTRN12625000075482 (https://www.anzctr.org.au/).
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.