What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In order for patients to adhere to advice, provided by family doctors, they must be able to recall it afterwards. However, several studies have shown that most patients do not fully understand or memorize it. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of demographic characteristics, education, amount of given advice and the time between consultations on recalled advice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective survey, lasting 30 months, was conducted in an urban family practice in Slovenia. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for poorer recall.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>250 patients (87.7% response rate) received at least one and up to four pieces of advice (2.4 ± 0.8). A follow-up consultation took place at 47.4 ± 35.2 days. The determinants of better recall were high school (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.15-0.99, p = 0.049) and college education (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10-1.00, p = 0.050), while worse recall was determined by number of given instructions three or four (OR 26.1, 95% CI 3.15-215.24, p = 0.002; OR 56.8, 95% CI 5.91-546.12, p < 0.001, respectively) and re-test interval: 15-30 days (OR 3.3, 95% CI 1.06-10.13, p = 0.040), 31-60 days (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.28-8.07, p = 0.013) and more than 60 days (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.05-6.02, p = 0.038).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Education was an important determinant factor and warrants further study. Patients should be given no more than one or two instructions in a consultation. When more is needed, the follow-up should be within the next 14 days, and would be of a greater benefit to higher educated patients.</p

Low literacy and written drug information: information-seeking, leaflet evaluation and preferences, and roles for images

Background Low-literate patients are at risk to misinterpret written drug information. For the (co-) design of targeted patient information, it is key to involve this group in determining their communication barriers and information needs. Objective To gain insight into how people with low literacy use and evaluate written drug information, and to identify ways in which they feel the patient leaflet can be improved, and in particular how images could be used. Setting Food banks and an education institution for Dutch language training in the Netherlands. Method Semi-structured focus groups and individual interviews were held with low-literate participants (n = 45). The thematic framework approach was used for analysis to identify themes in the data. Main outcome measure Low-literate people’s experience with patient information leaflets, ideas for improvements, and perceptions on possible uses for visuals. Results Patient information leaflets were considered discouraging to use, and information difficult to find and understand. Many rely on alternative information sources. The leaflet should be shorter, and improved in terms of organisation, legibility and readability. Participants thought images could increase the leaflet’s appeal, help ask questions, provide an overview, help understand textual information, aid recall, reassure, and even lead to increased confidence, empowerment and feeling of safety. Conclusion Already at the stages of paying attention to the leaflet and maintaining interest in the message, low-literate patients experience barriers in the communication process through written drug information. Short, structured, visual/textual explanations can lower the motivational threshold to use the leaflet, improve understanding, and empower the low-literate target group