Cited by 81Health Literacy and Information AccessibilityPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

What sixty years of research says about the effectiveness of patient education on health: a second order meta-analysis

Simonsmeier, Bianca A., Flaig, Maja, Simacek, Thomas, Schneider, Michael·2022·Health Psychology Review

Abstract

Although meta-analyses have examined the association between patient education and health, the validity and quality of this evidence have not been comprehensively assessed. This second order meta-analysis combined previous meta-analyses that examined the effectiveness of patient education on health outcomes as an overall weighted grand mean d¯¯. Further, measures of methodological quality, meaningful variability across first order meta-analyses, and evidence for publication bias were examined. Forty meta-analyses were identified, investigating 156 associations between patient education and health summarizing data from over 776 studies including more than 74.947 patients. Quantitative analyses showed that patient education positively affects health outcomes with d¯¯ = 0.316 (95% CI [0.304, 0.329]). Summarizing data exclusively from randomized controlled trials indicated a causal effect. Patient education was effective for patients with neoplasms, diabetes, mental and behavioral disorders, diseases of the circulatory system, the respiratory system, and the musculoskeletal system. Patient education was effective in the reduction of medication use, pain, and visits to medical facilities, and significantly improved physiological, physical, psychological outcomes, and patients’ general function. Overall, the findings reveal firm evidence for the effectiveness of patient education on health outcomes. However, theory-based interventions are lacking and need to be implemented to enable a successful transfer from theory to practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17437199.2021.1967184

Cites

120 of 120 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Simacek, T., & Schneider, M.
Affiliations
  • Universität Trier (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Corresponding author
Simonsmeier, Bianca A.
Venue
Health Psychology Review
Published
2021-08-24
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
450-474
ISSN
  • 1743-7199 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-7202
OpenAlex
W3189971633
Cited by
81
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 6
FWCI
11.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
patient education, health outcomes, methodological quality of meta-analyses, publication bias, randomized controlled trials, cancer patients, diabetes mellitus, mental illness, circulatory diseases, respiratory diseases, musculoskeletal disorders, medication use, pain, health care utilization, theory-based intervention, evidence-based practice
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Education as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review