Philip W B Watson1, Brian McKinstry. 1. Centre for Population Health Sciences, University of Edinburgh, UK. Philip.watson@ed.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In order for patients to adhere to healthcare advice, it is essential that they are able to recall this following a consultation. Although psychological research exists which highlights techniques and factors postulated to influence recall, only a limited body of work has been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness in a clinical context. AIM: To carry out a systematic review of intervention trials designed to enhance recall of medical information. METHODS: We searched Medline (1950-April 2007); Embase (1980-April 2007); Cinahl (1982-April 2007); PsychINFO (1969-2007); and the Cochrane Library Collection. Secondary searches were made through reference to relevant journals and reference lists from relevant papers/review papers. RESULTS: From 69 papers provisionally identified, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Nine recall interventions had been evaluated (audio recordings, written materials, adjunct questions, prompt sheets, visual aids, cognitive strategies, rehearsal, communication styles and personalized teaching). Despite the experimental and theoretical evidence which could have informed cognitive interventions to enhance recall of healthcare advice, most studies primarily focused on the use of written and/or audio-recorded medical instructions. Although the majority of studies supported these approaches insofar as they enhanced recall, the findings were equivocal. CONCLUSION: While written and tape-recorded instructions appear to improve recall in most situations, a dearth of interventions incorporating psychological theory was readily apparent. Further research is required in clinical settings to determine if cognitive interventions based on a more over-arching psychological model of recall are effective.
BACKGROUND: In order for patients to adhere to healthcare advice, it is essential that they are able to recall this following a consultation. Although psychological research exists which highlights techniques and factors postulated to influence recall, only a limited body of work has been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness in a clinical context. AIM: To carry out a systematic review of intervention trials designed to enhance recall of medical information. METHODS: We searched Medline (1950-April 2007); Embase (1980-April 2007); Cinahl (1982-April 2007); PsychINFO (1969-2007); and the Cochrane Library Collection. Secondary searches were made through reference to relevant journals and reference lists from relevant papers/review papers. RESULTS: From 69 papers provisionally identified, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Nine recall interventions had been evaluated (audio recordings, written materials, adjunct questions, prompt sheets, visual aids, cognitive strategies, rehearsal, communication styles and personalized teaching). Despite the experimental and theoretical evidence which could have informed cognitive interventions to enhance recall of healthcare advice, most studies primarily focused on the use of written and/or audio-recorded medical instructions. Although the majority of studies supported these approaches insofar as they enhanced recall, the findings were equivocal. CONCLUSION: While written and tape-recorded instructions appear to improve recall in most situations, a dearth of interventions incorporating psychological theory was readily apparent. Further research is required in clinical settings to determine if cognitive interventions based on a more over-arching psychological model of recall are effective.
Authors: M Watson; V Duvivier; M Wade Walsh; S Ashley; J Davidson; M Papaikonomou; V Murday; N Sacks; R Eeles Journal: J Med Genet Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 6.318
Authors: Alexander F J Send; Adel Al-Ayyash; Sabrina Schecher; Gottfried Rudofsky; Ulrike Klein; Matthias Schaier; Markus G Pruszydlo; Diana Witticke; Kristina Lohmann; Jens Kaltschmidt; Walter E Haefeli; Hanna M Seidling Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Alex Federman; Erin Sarzynski; Cindy Brach; Paul Francaviglia; Jessica Jacques; Lina Jandorf; Angela Sanchez Munoz; Michael Wolf; Joseph Kannry Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-09-15 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: G E Jones; J H Singletary; A Cashmore; V Jain; J Abhulimhen; J Chauhan; H V Musson; J G Barwell Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Sonia Ranganath Adams; Michele R Hacker; Anna Merport Modest; Peter L Rosenblatt; Eman A Elkadry Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Samantha Wong; John R Walker; Rachel Carr; Lesley A Graff; Ian Clara; Stephen Promislow; Linda Rogala; Norine Miller; Patricia Rawsthorne; Charles N Bernstein Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Paul G Mathew; Jelena M Pavlovic; Alyssa Lettich; Rebecca E Wells; Carrie E Robertson; Kathleen Mullin; Larry Charleston Iv; David W Dodick; Todd J Schwedt Journal: Headache Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Rochelle Watson; Jamie Bryant; Robert Sanson-Fisher; Heidi Turon; Lisa Hyde; Anne Herrmann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R E da Assunção; J Neely; J Lochab; N Mizumi-Richards; A Barnett; H Pandit Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-08-02 Impact factor: 4.342