Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: 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 characteris...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Selic, Polona, Svab, Igor, Repolusk, Marija, Gucek, Nena K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22204743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-141
_version_ 1782221977908412416
author Selic, Polona
Svab, Igor
Repolusk, Marija
Gucek, Nena K
author_facet Selic, Polona
Svab, Igor
Repolusk, Marija
Gucek, Nena K
author_sort Selic, Polona
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3264522
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32645222012-01-24 What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice? Selic, Polona Svab, Igor Repolusk, Marija Gucek, Nena K BMC Fam Pract Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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. BioMed Central 2011-12-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3264522/ /pubmed/22204743 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-141 Text en Copyright ©2011 Selic et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Selic, Polona
Svab, Igor
Repolusk, Marija
Gucek, Nena K
What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title_full What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title_fullStr What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title_full_unstemmed What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title_short What factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
title_sort what factors affect patients' recall of general practitioners' advice?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3264522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22204743
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-141
work_keys_str_mv AT selicpolona whatfactorsaffectpatientsrecallofgeneralpractitionersadvice
AT svabigor whatfactorsaffectpatientsrecallofgeneralpractitionersadvice
AT repoluskmarija whatfactorsaffectpatientsrecallofgeneralpractitionersadvice
AT guceknenak whatfactorsaffectpatientsrecallofgeneralpractitionersadvice