Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that helps researchers analyze interviews, open-ended surveys, and documents. According to the PLOS ONE study PLOS ONE by El-Kotob et al., published 20 August 2026, patients’ willingness to discuss medications depends on three psychological-safety constructs: belonging, learning, and participating. This post explains those constructs, summarizes concrete findings from 21 participants interviewed between 01 May 2024 and 31 August 2024, and shows how AI-enabled qualitative research workflows can measure and improve psychological safety in medication conversations for researchers and clinical teams. The primary keyword for this post is psychological safety in medication conversations and the content below provides step-by-step, extractable guidance and tools you can use right away.
Key Takeaways
According to the PLOS ONE study PLOS ONE (El-Kotob et al., published 20 August 2026), psychological safety in medication conversations rests on patients feeling heard, informed, and invited to participate. The PLOS ONE study interviewed 21 adults in Ontario between May and August 2024 and found that respectful communication, clear explanations, and shared decision-making each supported patient engagement.
- 21 participants were included in the study reported in PLOS ONE, with data collected from 01 May 2024 to 31 August 2024, and publication on 20 August 2026.
- In the PLOS ONE sample, 19 of 21 participants were aged 40 years or older, and 14 of 21 identified as female, as reported in PLOS ONE (El-Kotob et al., 2026).
- The PLOS ONE analysis used the Patient Psychological Safety framework (belonging, learning, participating) to structure findings and concluded that multi-level system changes are needed to support safe medication conversations.
- Direct participant language in PLOS ONE included "I want to be a part of the decisions that are made about my care" [P03] and the paper title quote, "I just don’t want to take up people’s time, " which captures patient hesitation to speak up (El-Kotob et al., PLOS ONE, 2026).
What happened: study design and measures
Answer: The PLOS ONE study conducted a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews and focus groups to examine patient psychological safety during medication conversations.
According to the PLOS ONE paper (El-Kotob et al., published 20 August 2026), researchers recruited adults in Ontario who had taken at least one prescribed medication for three months or more and used purposive, convenience, and snowball sampling.
According to the PLOS ONE methods section, data collection occurred between 01 May 2024 and 31 August 2024 via Zoom or telephone, sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the analysis was organized using the Patient Psychological Safety (PPS) framework with domains of belonging, learning, and participating.
Findings Snapshot
| Date | Metric | Value | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01 May–31 Aug 2024 | Participants interviewed | 21 | Small qualitative sample, rich interview data for PPS framework coding |
| Aug 20, 2026 | Publication date | PLOS ONE (El-Kotob et al., 2026) | Peer-reviewed evidence for psychological safety in medication conversations |
| May–Aug 2024 | Age distribution | 19 of 21 ≥ 40 years | Findings skew older; consider recruiting younger groups for transferability |
| May–Aug 2024 | Gender/ethnicity | 14 of 21 female; 14 of 21 White | Limited diversity noted by study authors; interpret subgroup claims cautiously |
Implications for researchers and clinicians
Answer: The PLOS ONE study implies that both clinician communication and system design influence whether patients speak up about medications.
According to El-Kotob et al. in PLOS ONE (published 20 August 2026), clinicians who show respect and invite input foster belonging and participation, while rushed, dismissive encounters reduce psychological safety and medication engagement.
According to the PLOS ONE discussion, system-level constraints such as short appointment times and fragmented care in primary settings limit opportunities to build psychological safety and should be considered when designing interventions.
How Evidano Helps: AI-enabled qualitative workflows for measuring psychological safety
Problem: interviews are time-consuming to code and compare across segments
Answer: AI-assisted thematic coding speeds synthesis without losing analytic rigor.
Evidano is an AI-powered qualitative data analysis platform that helps researchers analyze interviews, open-ended surveys, and documents. For example, evidence teams can ingest transcripts from the 21 interviews described in the PLOS ONE study and run a thematic analysis aligned to the Patient Psychological Safety framework to quantify how often participants mention belonging, learning, and participating.
Evidano feature link: Evidano features
Problem: comparing communication themes across demographics is error-prone
Answer: Cross-segment frequency and co-occurrence analysis reveal where themes cluster by age, gender, or other attributes.
According to the PLOS ONE limitations, the sample had 14 White participants and 14 females, so researchers replicating or extending the study can use Evidano to compare themes across underrepresented subgroups and flag gaps for targeted recruitment.
Problem: transcripts contain PII and long verbatim quotes
Answer: Automated PII redaction and searchable transcripts let teams preserve participant privacy while extracting quotable evidence.
Evidano supports secure transcript handling and allows teams to export coded quotes, so you can extract respondent language such as "I want to be a part of the decisions that are made about my care" [P03] when you build evidence briefs.
FAQ: psychological safety in medication conversations
What is psychological safety in medication conversations?
Answer: Psychological safety in medication conversations means patients feel accepted, able to ask questions, and safe to share concerns without fear of judgement.
According to the PLOS ONE study (El-Kotob et al., 2026), the Patient Psychological Safety framework comprises three domains: belonging, learning, and participating, which together shape patients’ willingness to engage about medications.
How was psychological safety measured in the PLOS ONE study?
Answer: The PLOS ONE study used a secondary deductive content analysis of interviews mapped to the PPS framework.
According to El-Kotob et al. in PLOS ONE (published 20 August 2026), transcripts from interviews and focus groups collected between 01 May 2024 and 31 August 2024 were coded into a matrix aligned to belonging, learning, and participating constructs.
Which concrete signals indicate low psychological safety in medication talks?
Answer: Signals include patient statements of feeling dismissed, embarrassment when asking about medication effects, and avoiding questions because they "don’t want to take up people’s time."
According to the PLOS ONE findings, participants reported being dismissed, shame about stigmatized medications, and uncertainty about who to contact with medication concerns, all of which reduced engagement.
Can AI help analyze qualitative interviews about psychological safety?
Answer: Yes, AI can speed coding, extract verbatim quotes, and quantify theme frequency while preserving audit trails.
According to best practices for qualitative AI workflows, platforms like Evidano enable thematic, frequency, and cross-segment analyses so teams can replicate the PLOS ONE approach at larger scale and with better demographic comparisons. See Evidano features for tools that map to these tasks.
Conclusion & Next Steps
Answer: The PLOS ONE study (El-Kotob et al., published 20 August 2026) shows that fostering belonging, clear learning opportunities, and active participation improves patients’ readiness to talk about medications.
According to PLOS ONE, practical changes include clinician communication training, longer or structured appointments, and system supports for continuity of care; researchers should test these using mixed-methods or implementation trials.
If you want to scale analysis of interview data about psychological safety, try a reproducible AI-enabled workflow that includes secure transcripts, thematic coding, and cross-segment reporting.
Get started building those workflows and testing interventions by Try Evidano for free.
Topics
- psychological safety in medication conversations
- patient psychological safety
- qualitative medication communication
- AI qualitative analysis
Keep reading
- Commentary on NewsImprove Psychological Safety in Medication ConversationsUse AI-enabled qualitative analysis to measure and improve psychological safety in medication conversations. Learn findings from PLOS ONE (2026) and practical next steps.
- Commentary on NewsImproving Psychological Safety in Medication ConversationsWhat builds patient psychological safety when discussing medications and how AI-enabled qualitative research can help. Insights from a PLOS ONE study plus practical next steps.
- Commentary on NewsPsychological Safety in Medication Conversations21 interviews (May-Aug 2024) show practical steps to improve psychological safety in medication conversations. AI-enabled qualitative methods for research teams. Try Evidano.