Adam Badaczewski1, Laurie J Bauman2, Arthur E Blank2, Benard Dreyer3, Mary Ann Abrams4, Ruth E K Stein2, Debra L Roter5, Jobayer Hossain1, Hal Byck6, Iman Sharif7. 1. Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA. 2. Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Children's Hospital at Montefiore, Bronx, NY, USA. 3. New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Columbus, OH, USA. 5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA; The Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Nemours/Alfred I. duPont Hospital for Children, Wilmington, DE, USA; The Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Electronic address: iman.sharif@nyumc.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We proposed and tested a theoretical framework for how use of Teach-back could influence communication during the pediatric clinical encounter. METHODS: Audio-taped pediatric primary care encounters with 44 children with asthma were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to measure patient-centered communication and affective engagement of the parent. A newly created Teach-back Loop Score measured the extent to which Teach-back occurred during the clinical encounter; parental health literacy was measured by Newest Vital Sign. Logistic regression was used to test the relationship between Teach-back and features of communication. Focus groups held separately with clinicians and parents elicited perceptions of Teach-back usefulness. RESULTS: Teach-back was used in 39% of encounters. Visits with Teach-back had more patient centered communication (p=0.01). Adjusting for parent health literacy, parent age, and child age, Teach-back increased the odds of both patient centered communication [proportional AOR (95% CI)=4.97 (4.47-5.53)]and negative affect [AOR (95% CI)=5.39 (1.68-17.31)]. Focus group themes common to clinicians and parents included: Teach-back is effective, could cause discomfort, should be used with children, and nurses should use it. CONCLUSIONS: Teach-back was associated with more patient-centered communication and increased affective engagement of parents. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Standardizing Teach-back use may strengthen patient-centered communication.
OBJECTIVE: We proposed and tested a theoretical framework for how use of Teach-back could influence communication during the pediatric clinical encounter. METHODS: Audio-taped pediatric primary care encounters with 44 children with asthma were coded using the Roter Interaction Analysis System to measure patient-centered communication and affective engagement of the parent. A newly created Teach-back Loop Score measured the extent to which Teach-back occurred during the clinical encounter; parental health literacy was measured by Newest Vital Sign. Logistic regression was used to test the relationship between Teach-back and features of communication. Focus groups held separately with clinicians and parents elicited perceptions of Teach-back usefulness. RESULTS: Teach-back was used in 39% of encounters. Visits with Teach-back had more patient centered communication (p=0.01). Adjusting for parent health literacy, parent age, and child age, Teach-back increased the odds of both patient centered communication [proportional AOR (95% CI)=4.97 (4.47-5.53)]and negative affect [AOR (95% CI)=5.39 (1.68-17.31)]. Focus group themes common to clinicians and parents included: Teach-back is effective, could cause discomfort, should be used with children, and nurses should use it. CONCLUSIONS: Teach-back was associated with more patient-centered communication and increased affective engagement of parents. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Standardizing Teach-back use may strengthen patient-centered communication.
Authors: Teri Turner; William L Cull; Barbara Bayldon; Perri Klass; Lee M Sanders; Mary Pat Frintner; Mary Ann Abrams; Benard Dreyer Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Young-Rock Hong; Michelle Cardel; Ryan Suk; Ivana A Vaughn; Ashish A Deshmukh; Carla L Fisher; Gregory Pavela; Kalyani Sonawane Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mary C Barks; Emma A Schindler; Peter A Ubel; Megan G Jiao; Kathryn I Pollak; Hanna E Huffstetler; Monica E Lemmon Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-06-11
Authors: Janet A Curran; Allyson J Gallant; Roger Zemek; Amanda S Newton; Mona Jabbour; Jill Chorney; Andrea Murphy; Lisa Hartling; Kate MacWilliams; Amy Plint; Shannon MacPhee; Andrea Bishop; Samuel G Campbell Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-04-03