Communication study
Improving patient recall of information: Harnessing the power of structure

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.02.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The informed patient is a pre-requisite for shared decision making and informed choices.

  • Patients’ capacity to recall information is limited.

  • Does structuring information increase recall?.

  • Structuring increases recall from 5.7 to 8.1 out of 28 items.

Abstract

Objective

Assess the amount of medical information laypeople recall, investigate the impact of structured presentation on recall.

Methods

105 first-year psychology students (mean age 21.5 ± 3.8 years; 85% female) were randomised to two information-presentation conditions: structured (S group) and nonstructured (NS group). Students watched a video of a physician discharging a patient from the emergency department. In the S Group, content (28 items of information) was divided into explicit “chapters” with “chapter headings” preceding new information. Afterwards, participants wrote down all information they recalled on an empty sheet of paper.

Results

The S group (N = 57) recalled significantly more items than NS group (N = 41) (8.12 ± 4.31 vs. 5.71 ± 3.73; p = 0.005), rated information as easier to understand (8.0 ± 1.9 vs. 6.1 ± 2.2; p < 0.001) and better structured (8.5 ± 1.5 vs. 5.5 ± 2.7; p < 0.001); they rather recommended the physician to friends (7.1 ± 2.7 vs. 5.8 ± 2.6; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

University students recalled around 7/28 items of information presented. Explicit structure improved recall.

Practice implications

Practitioners must reduce the amount of information conveyed and structure information to improve recall.

Introduction

Communication in health care often means the exchange of medical information. This is true for ward rounds in internal medicine [1], outpatients in internal medicine [2], and oncological consultations (e.g. [3], [4]). Findings indicate that many patients and their relatives want to be fully informed about their condition [5], [6], [7], [8]. For instance, questionnaire data indicate that 87% of patients “want to be told all information” and only 9% “want the doctor to choose how much information to give” [9] (see also [5], [6]). Similarly, qualitative data show that both patients and parents expect physicians to inform them about diagnosis, therapy, and prognosis [10], [11], [12].

Patient–physician communication goes beyond the filling of knowledge gaps, however. It is also the basis for patients’ inferences about the health practitioner. For instance, recent qualitative studies on communication in oncology have demonstrated that patients’ trust is based primarily on the impression of clinical competence that emerges from their communication with oncological surgeons and haematologists [13]. Furthermore, Parker et al. [14] and Hagerty et al. [15] have reported that patients’ hope depends largely on the impression that their physician is competent and “knows all there is to know about the disease”. Physicians may not be aware of the importance that patients attribute to receiving information, however: In their studies of patient centeredness and consultation skills in primary care, Ogden et al. [7] and Robinson et al. [8] found that patients ranked items relating to patient information and the structure of consultations significantly higher than physicians did.

However, other findings suggest that the exchange of information may be an ephemeral phenomenon. Specifically, several studies have found that patient comprehension and recall of information is limited [16], [17]. Three examples from surgery illustrate these limitations: On average, only 2 out of 5 complications were recalled in the context of elective plastic surgery [18]; 5 out of 32 pieces of information were correctly remembered 2 h after the preoperative discussion prior to brain surgery and 4 out of 25 pieces of information prior to spinal surgery [19] (for a recent review, see [20]). Questionnaire data from patients with advanced metastatic cancer revealed how little patients understood of their clinical situation. Although they had been informed by their doctors about the advanced stage of their disease and the clinical consequences, they largely overestimated the chance of recovery and failed to understand the palliative rather than curative goal of their treatment [21].

These insights raise the following questions: How can patient recall and understanding of medical information be improved? One of the first authors to address these questions was Ley (e.g. [22]). Ley recommended using explicit categorisation, with the clinician presenting “information in categories, which he has announced in advance”. Several review articles have since investigated whether patient understanding and recall of information can be improved by the use of additional communicative aids. Although results have been mixed and the evidence is not always convincing, the general picture to emerge is that patients recall slightly more information when they are given written or otherwise designed information material. For example, Ciciriello et al. [23] found weak evidence that the addition of multimedia material to standard instructions improved patient knowledge about medication (see also [24], [25], [26]). To our knowledge, however, none of the interventions evaluated in these review articles have focused on the explicit structuring of verbal information.

Although the provision of generic written information improves patient knowledge to some extent, it is associated with two major problems: First, information leaflets on diagnostic interventions usually cover the standard procedure in common diagnoses. However, the typical patient presents with a more complex combination of symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment options – a complexity that cannot be accommodated in standardised materials. Second, even when provided with the most sophisticated information material, patients show much lower recall capacity than physicians evidently assume: Physicians asked which information was essential for patients discharged from the emergency department after presenting with acute chest pain on average chose 36 out of 81 pre-defined items [27] – far beyond the typical recall capacity reported in the literature (e.g. [20]). Both problems are related. Tailoring information to more complex real-world cases is likely to involve the provision of even more information.

In principle, there are two ways out of this dilemma: less information or better communication. By better communication, we mean communication in ways that increase the likelihood that patients will later be able to retrieve the information. Here, we investigate whether structuring medical information improves recall. Specifically, information appears easier to retain when it is structured in a way that helps the recipient to organise it [28], [29]. In written material, structure is reflected in the way content is ordered sequentially. For instance, in newspapers, headlines precede the main text and are easy to identify; they announce the topic elaborated on in the text. Books use even more sophisticated structural elements to guide readers through content: title, table of contents, chapter headings, text, reference list, etc. In our communication skills training for medical students, we have used the term “book metaphor” to help participants understand, appreciate and remember the value and function of “structuring information” [30], [31].

In this pilot study, we investigated whether first-year psychology students serving as surrogate patients recalled more information when discharge information was presented in structured form, in accordance with the book metaphor, than they did when exactly the same information was presented in nonstructured form.

Section snippets

Participants

First-year psychology students were invited to participate in a trial measuring recall of medical information. Of the 167 students approached, 105 agreed to participate and provided informed consent. Sixteen of these students were male; mean age was 21.5 ± 3.8 years. Ninety-eight students returned completed recall protocols. The study was approved by the local ethics committee (protocol number: 362/11). Participants received no compensation for their participation.

Study design

On their arrival, students were

Results

One student in the nonstructured and 6 students in the structured condition returned empty recall protocols. Students in both groups reported a similar sense of well-being on the day of the study (6.5 ± 1.8 in both groups; n.s.). Students in the structured group felt better able to concentrate (6.5 ± 1.8 vs. 5.6 ± 2.0; p = 0.03). Students in the structured group answered 3.20 ± 1.3 items correctly in the medical knowledge assessment, slightly but not significantly more than their counterparts in the

Discussion

Our findings show that the number of items of information that experts considered essential for patients being discharged from the emergency department by far exceeded participants’ recall capacity [18]. This finding could have major consequences for clinical practice and teaching. Assuming that medical information has one primary goal, namely to enable the patient to make informed choices, the elements of information provided need to be limited to a number that patients can retain in memory

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Claudia Steiner and Susannah Goss for editing the manuscript and to the students who volunteered as participants. The research was supported by the Scientific Fundof the Emergency Department, University Hospital Basel.

References (40)

  • P.N. Butow et al.

    Communicating prognosis to patients with metastatic disease: what do they really want to know?

    Support Care Cancer

    (2002)
  • P.N. Butow et al.

    Oncologists’ reactions to cancer patients’ verbal cues

    Psychooncology

    (2002)
  • S.A. Kaplowitz et al.

    Cancer patients’ desires for communication of prognosis information

    Health Commun

    (2002)
  • J.W. Mack et al.

    Communication about prognosis between parents and physicians of children with cancer: parent preferences and the impact of prognostic information

    J Clin Oncol

    (2006)
  • J. Robinson et al.

    Measuring consultation skills in primary care in England: evaluation and development of content of the MAAS scale

    Br J Gen Pract

    (2002)
  • M. Forsey et al.

    Comparing doctors’ and nurses’ accounts of how they provide emotional care for parents of children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia

    Psychooncology

    (2013)
  • P.A. Parker et al.

    Breaking bad news about cancer: patients’ preferences for communication

    J Clin Oncol

    (2001)
  • R.G. Hagerty et al.

    Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients’ views on the disclosure of prognosis

    J Clin Oncol

    (2005)
  • R.P. Kessels

    Patients’ memory for medical information

    J R Soc Med

    (2003)
  • A.S. Makdessian et al.

    Informed consent in facial plastic surgery: effectiveness of a simple educational intervention

    Arch Facial Plast Surg

    (2004)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text