The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts
Open accessAbstract
Patients often have difficulty comprehending or recalling information given to them by their healthcare providers. Use of 'teach-back' has been shown to improve patients' knowledge and self-care abilities, however there is little guidance for healthcare services seeking to embed teach-back in their setting. This review aims to synthesize evidence about the translation of teach-back into practice including mode of delivery, use of implementation strategies and effectiveness. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies reporting the use of teach-back as an educational intervention, published up to July 2019. Two reviewers independently extracted study data and assessed methodologic quality. Implementation strategies were extracted into distinct categories established in the Implementation Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Overall, 20 studies of moderate quality were included in this review (four rated high, nine rated moderate, seven rated weak). Studies were heterogeneous in terms of setting, population and outcomes. In most studies (n = 15), teach-back was delivered as part of a simple and structured educational approach. Implementation strategies were infrequently reported (n = 10 studies). The most used implementation strategies were training and education of stakeholders (n = 8), support for clinicians (n = 6) and use of audits and provider feedback (n = 4). Use of teach-back proved effective in 19 of the 20 studies, ranging from learning-related outcomes (e.g. knowledge recall and retention) to objective health-related outcomes (e.g. hospital re-admissions, quality of life). Teach-back was found to be effective across a wide range of settings, populations and outcome measures. While its mode of delivery is well-defined, strategies to support its translation into practice are not often described. Use of implementation strategies such as training and education of stakeholders and supporting clinicians during implementation may improve the uptake and sustainability of teach-back and achieve positive outcomes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.a1655 · Cited by 10,995
Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review
Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005 · Cited by 5,505
Powell, B. J., Waltz, T. J., Chinman, M. J., Damschroder, L. J., Smith, J. L., Matthieu, M. M., Proctor, E. K., & Kirchner, J. E. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1 · Cited by 4,963
How does communication heal? Pathways linking clinician–patient communication to health outcomes
Street, R. L., Makoul, G., Arora, N. K., & Epstein, R. M. (2009) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.015 · Cited by 2,465
Thomas, B. H., Ciliska, D., Dobbins, M., & Micucci, S. (2004) · Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing · doi:10.1111/j.1524-475x.2004.04006.x · Cited by 2,118
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2013) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010 · Cited by 1,658
Patients’ Memory for Medical Information
Kessels, R. P. C. (2003) · Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · doi:10.1177/014107680309600504 · Cited by 1,348
Doctor-patient communication: a review.
Ha, J. F., & Longnecker, N. E. (2010) · PubMed · Cited by 1,347
Cited by
Body Image Concerns in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Longitudinal Study
Henry, M., Albert, J. G., Frenkiel, S., Hier, M., Zeitouni, A., Kost, K., Mlynarek, A., Black, M., MacDonald, C., Richardson, K., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.816587 · Cited by 57
Evaluating clinical communication skills of medical students, assistants, and professors
Moezzi, M., Rasekh, S., Zare, E., & Karimi, M. (2024) · BMC Medical Education · doi:10.1186/s12909-023-05015-4 · Cited by 14
Busch, F., Kaibel, L., Nguyen, H., Lemke, T., Ziegelmayer, S., Graf, M., Marka, A. W., Endrös, L., Prucker, P., Spitzl, D., et al. (2025) · Journal of Imaging Informatics in Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10278-025-01483-w · Cited by 10
Metadata
- Authors
- Talevski, J., Wong Shee, A., Rasmussen, B., Kemp, G., & Beauchamp, A.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2020-04-14
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0231350
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3015423216
- Cited by
- 363
- References
- 65
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0231350
- The paper
- Talevski, J., Wong Shee, A., Rasmussen, B., Kemp, G., & Beauchamp, A. (2020). Teach-back: A systematic review of implementation and impacts. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231350
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.