Strategies for teaching patients: a meta-analysis
Abstract
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to synthesize the existing body of research examining teaching strategies used in patient education. An extensive literature search revealed 72 studies that met inclusion criteria. Studies were coded for general, substantive, and methodological characteristics, and an effect size was generated for each study. Mean effect size was 0.41, indicating that 66% of subjects receiving planned teaching had better outcomes than did control group subjects receiving routine care. Structure yielded the highest effect size, with reinforcement, independent study, and use of multiple strategies also above the study mean. Differences in mean effect size were also found in other variables (type of outcome measure, teaching content, type of instructional media, type of learning activity, retention of learning, quality of study methods, and publication date). Implications for research and clinical practice are discussed.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.