SynthesisCancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center
Effectiveness of Visual-Based Interventions on Understanding Cancer Information: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
IntroductionThe aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of visual-based education intervention on understanding cancer information.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review across PubMed, Embase and Scopus electronic databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, in July 2025. Randomized and non-randomized studies measuring impact of visual-based education interventions on health literacy, knowledge, comprehension, or understanding in cancer were considered for inclusion. Quality assessment was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). A descriptive analysis of included studies was performed, and a meta-analysis was performed for Randomised clinical trials (RCTs).ResultsTwenty-one studies were included in the review, 11 RCTs, seven non-RCTs, and three mixed methods design. The studies were conducted in seven countries across five continents. A high proportion of the included studies satisfied the MMAT quality assessment criteria. Visual-based interventions improved knowledge and comprehension compared to non-visual communication such as audio or basic text. In one study, video intervention increased knowledge with mean difference 3.96 ± 1.69 compared to pamphlet (1.76 ± 1.42). Crowd-figure-pictograms with numeric data increased knowledge by 2.42 compared to non-numeric controls (0.20). Furthermore, 3D printed models improved understanding compared to imaging alone (4.60-4.78/5 vs. 4.06-4.49/5), and visual-based treatment timelines improved comprehension compared to audio (0.84 vs 0.68). However, certain visual-based interventions had no impact over well-designed static materials in some contexts. Health literacy was a significant moderator of outcomes, and low health literacy was consistently associated with poor baseline knowledge and comprehension, regardless of visualization format.ConclusionVisual-based education interventions may improve knowledge, comprehension and understanding, overcoming barriers imposed by limited health literacy, hence empowering patients to self-manage their health across various cancer contexts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.