Communication and patient participation influencing patient recall of treatment discussions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Patient recall of treatment information is a key variable towards chronic disease (CD) management. It is unclear what communication and patient participation characteristics predict recall. OBJECTIVES: To assess what aspects of doctor-patient communication predict patient recall of medication information. To describe lifestyle treatment recall, in CD primary care patients. DESIGN: Observational study within a RCT. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Community-based primary care (PC) practices. Family physicians (n=18): practicing >5 years, with a CD patient caseload. Patients (n=159): >40 years old, English speaking, computer literate, off-target hypertension, type II diabetes and/or dyslipidaemia. MAIN VARIABLES: Patient characteristics: age, education, number of CDs. Information characteristics: length of encounter, medication status, medication class. Communication variables: socio-emotional utterances, physician dominance and communication control scores and PACE (ask, check and express) utterances, measured by RIAS. Number of medication themes, dialogue and initiative measured by MEDICODE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Recall of CD, lifestyle treatment and medication information. RESULTS: Frequency of lifestyle discussions varied by topic. Patients recalled 43% (alcohol), 52% (diet) to 70% (exercise) of discussions. Two and a half of six possible medication themes were broached per medication discussion. Less than one was recalled. Discussing more themes, greater dialogue and patient initiative were significant predictors of improved medication information recall. DISCUSSION: Critical treatment information is infrequently exchanged. Active patient engagement and explicit conversations about medications are associated with improved treatment information recall in off-target CD patients followed in PC. CONCLUSION: Providers cannot take for granted that long-term off-target CD patients recall information. They need to encourage patient participation to improve recall of treatment information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it