Literature DB >> 8229143

General information tapes inhibit recall of the cancer consultation.

S M Dunn1, P N Butow, M H Tattersall, Q J Jones, J S Sheldon, J J Taylor, M D Sumich.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Studies of tape recordings of cancer consultations have produced conflicting results. At the same time, audiotapes containing general information about cancer are poorly evaluated and are distributed to patients in an ad hoc manner. We compared the effects of both interventions on patient satisfaction, psychologic adjustment, and recall of information following their first consultation with a medical oncologist. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients (n = 142) were randomized to receive (1) an audiotape of their consultation, (2) an audiotape describing cancer in general terms, or (3) no tape. Recall of information was assessed in a structured interview 4 to 20 days after the consultation.
RESULTS: Satisfaction with the consultation increased linearly from no tape to general tape to consultation tape. Satisfaction with the tape itself was higher in patients who received the consultation tape (satisfaction score, 61%) compared with those who received the general tape (43%). Average recall for all groups was 6.4 of the 25 items of information presented, and 2.4 of the six points identified as particularly important by the oncologist. The consultation tape did not improve recall over the no tape control, but the general tape caused a decrease of almost two items in total recall. Spontaneous (ie, unprompted) recall was significantly poorer with the general information tape. Psychologic adjustment to cancer was unaffected.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that individual audiotapes have a limited potential to increase recall of information from the oncology consultation. General information tapes about cancer appear to inhibit recall actively.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8229143     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.11.2279

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  27 in total

1.  Privacy-solidarity conflict: the communication with the support group.

Authors:  C Y Finocchiaro; A Botturi; E Lamperti; S Gauri; A Petruzzi; G Simonetti; L Sarno; A Salmaggi
Journal:  Neurol Sci       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.307

Review 2.  A systematic review of interventions to improve recall of medical advice in healthcare consultations.

Authors:  Philip W B Watson; Brian McKinstry
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 5.344

3.  The use of multimedia in the informed consent process.

Authors:  H B Jimison; P P Sher; R Appleyard; Y LeVernois
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1998 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients.

Authors:  R Jones; J Pearson; S McGregor; A J Cawsey; A Barrett; N Craig; J M Atkinson; W H Gilmour; J McEwen
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-11-06

Review 5.  Giving tape recordings or written summaries of consultations to people with cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  J T Scott; V A Entwistle; A J Sowden; I Watt
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Meeting patients' information needs beyond the year 2000.

Authors:  M H Tattersall; P N Butow; P M Ellis
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Patient and caregiver perceptions of communication of prognosis in high grade glioma.

Authors:  E A Lobb; G K B Halkett; A K Nowak
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 4.130

8.  Study protocol: addressing evidence and context to facilitate transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology: a knowledge translation implementation study.

Authors:  Thomas F Hack; J Dean Ruether; Lorna M Weir; Debjani Grenier; Lesley F Degner
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2011-03-14       Impact factor: 7.327

9.  The goals of communicating bad news in health care: do physicians and patients agree?

Authors:  Kate Sweeny; James A Shepperd; Paul K J Han
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2011-07-20       Impact factor: 3.377

10.  Second medical opinions: the views of oncology patients and their physicians.

Authors:  Jennifer Philip; Michelle Gold; Max Schwarz; Paul Komesaroff
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2009-10-04       Impact factor: 3.603

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.