Evaluation of teach-back and plain language acceptability during patient interactions

This research investigated participants' acceptability of clinicians' use of teach-back and plain language. A 30-min survey was administered to 162 undergraduates who watched and rated two doctor-patient interactions explaining multiple sclerosis and diabetes. Interactions included jargon only, jargon+teach-back, plain language only, and plain language+teach-back. The results indicated a significant preference for plain language over jargon in both multiple sclerosis [F(1, 157) = 57.73, p < . 001, hp2 = 0.27] and diabetes [F(1, 157) = 63.42, p < .001, hp2 = 0.29]. Teach-back was favored over no teach-back for multiple sclerosis [F(1, 157) = 8.99, p < .01, hp2 = 0.05] but not for diabetes [F(1, 157) = 1.05, n.s.]. Participants reported being more familiar with diabetes, suggesting that teach-back may be particularly beneficial for unfamiliar information. Overall, participants ranked plain language with teach-back as the most preferred interaction and jargon-only as the least preferred. Clinicians should avoid excessive jargon and actively engage patients by employing teach-back questions, especially when discussing unfamiliar information. This study advances clinician–patient communication by examining the acceptability of teach-back rather than its effectiveness, addressing a key gap in understanding when such strategies are likely to be adopted in practice. Findings challenge assumptions that teach-back inherently ensures comprehension, emphasizing the necessity of plain-language delivery and offering a replicable framework for evaluating patient acceptability in real-world contexts. • Participants reported the use of teach-back and plain language as acceptable. • Teach-back is preferred when the information is unfamiliar. • Plain language is more important to the participants than teach-back. • Preferences are idiosyncratic, and some people prefer teach-back more than others.