Patients’ Recall of Diagnostic and Treatment Information Improves with Use of the Pain Explanation and Treatment Diagram in an Outpatient Chronic Pain Clinic
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Educating patients about their condition and treatment plan is an essential component of successful treatment. Patients need to understand their condition, recall treatment suggestions and comply with the treatment protocol. Unfortunately, the method of patient education most commonly used by physicians is verbal teaching and discussion, which leads to poor patient recall. The authors of this article developed the Pain Explanation and Treatment Diagram, a worksheet that the clinician completes with the patient during their first consultation to function as a record of their diagnosis, pain risk factors and an action plan for when pain occurs. In this study, patient recall, among other variables, was assessed as a function of time since first appointment. BACKGROUND: To maximize the benefit of therapies, patients must understand their condition, recall treatment suggestions and comply with treatments. The Pain Explanation and Treatment Diagram (PETD) is a one‐page worksheet that identifies risk factors (health‐related habits, sleep, exercise, ergonomics and psychosocial factors) involved in chronic pain. Clinician and patient complete the PETD together, and the clinician notes recommended treatments and lifestyle changes. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of use of the PETD on patient recall of diagnostic and treatment information on the sheet. METHODS: The present study was a cross‐sectional analysis. Patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain seen by one physiatrist at an outpatient pain clinic in a university‐affiliated hospital between 2009 and 2012 (all of whom received the PETD) were eligible. A structured telephone interview lasting approximately 1 h was used to determine recall of PETD diagnostic and treatment information. RESULTS: Of the 84 eligible patients, 46 were contacted and 29 completed the telephone interview. Participants recalled an average of 12.2% (95% CI 7.8% to 17.4%) of items without prompting and 48.5% (95% CI 42.0% to 53.5%) when prompted. Participants who referred to the PETD at home (n=13) recalled significantly more items than those who did not (n=15) (17.6% [95% CI 11.1% to 23.9%] versus 5.2% [95% CI 3.0% to 14.5%], P=0.004); when prompted, the rates increased to 54.3% (95% CI 48.3% to 61.2%) and 41.2% (95% CI 34.7% to 50.7%), respectively (P=0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The PETD is a promising, feasible and inexpensive tool that can improve patients’ recall of diagnostic‐ and treatment‐related information.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».