Skip to main content

Teach-Back in Clinical Communication: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Journal
Journal of general internal medicine (Q1)
Published
3 September 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Judith B Vick, Rachel Pace, Patrycja Klimek-Johnson, Sharron Rushton, Mikaela Roberts, Allison Lewinski, et al.
PMID
42693371
DOI
10.1007/s11606-026-10678-y

Why clinicians should know about it

  • Picked for Internal Medicine (top studies of the week, 6 September 2026): High-quality evidence in a top journal

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Teach-back has been identified as a high-quality clinical communication strategy. Our aim was to synthesize current literature on teach-back effectiveness. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL Complete databases to identify relevant studies published between 2018 and 2026. We also included pre-2018 studies identified in prior systematic reviews. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they involved adult patients and/or care partners, delivered teach-back in a single encounter, had a comparator group, and reported proximal/intermediate patient outcomes (as defined in our conceptual model). Two independent investigators screened each citation at the title/abstract and full-text levels and assessed risk of bias. Study characteristics and results were extracted. When meta-analysis was performed, we used standardized mean differences (SMD) to estimate summary effects. We assessed certainty of evidence (COE) using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 18 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1985 participants. Across 9 RCTs assessing knowledge acquisition, conceptual inconsistencies precluded meta-analysis. Overall, there was no clear pattern of the effect of teach-back on knowledge (very low COE). In a meta-analysis of 5 RCTs assessing self-efficacy (416 participants), we found that teach-back interventions led to a large increase in self-efficacy relative to usual care (SMD = 2.40; 95%CI 0.37-4.44) (very low COE). In a meta-analysis of 7 RCTs assessing adherence to health behaviors (571 participants), teach-back interventions led to a large increase in adherence (SMD = 1.04; 95%CI 0.45-1.64) (low COE). Meta-analyses for both self-efficacy and adherence had large confidence intervals that ranged from small to large effect sizes and had substantial heterogeneity. DISCUSSION: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we did not identify a clear benefit of teach-back on knowledge acquisition but did find evidence that teach-back improves self-efficacy and self-reported, short-term adherence to health behaviors.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.