Cited by 63Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityHealth Education and Validation

Ask, Understand, Remember: A Brief Measure of Patient Communication Self-Efficacy Within Clinical Encounters

Open access
Clayman, Marla L., Pandit, Anjali U., Bergeron, Ashley R., Cameron, Kenzie A., Ross, Emily, Wolf, Michael S.·2010·Journal of Health Communication

Abstract

Patients' ability to effectively communicate with their health care providers is an essential aspect of proper self-care, especially for those with chronic conditions. We wanted to develop and validate a brief, reliable measure of patient communication self-efficacy within clinical encounters. Consecutively recruited patients (n = 330) with diagnosed hypertension from seven primary care clinics in Chicago, Illinois, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Shreveport, Louisiana completed an in-person interview including chronic disease self-efficacy, hypertension knowledge, health literacy assessments, and items modified from the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy (CASE) - Cancer scale. Six items from the CASE were candidates for a new scale due to their focus on the patient-provider relationship. Using principal components analysis with varimax rotation, four items strongly loaded onto one factor (Eigenvalue = 2.33; proportion of variance explained = 58%) with a Cronbach's α coefficient of 0.75. The measure, referred to as the Ask, Understand, Remember Assessment, (AURA) was moderately correlated with the total score from an existing chronic disease management self-efficacy scale (r = 0.31) and disease knowledge (beta coefficient = 0.2, 95% Confidence Interval 0.04 - 0.3, p = .03). Patients with low health literacy had lower scores on the AURA than those with marginal or adequate health literacy (p < .05). The AURA demonstrated high internal consistency and was correlated with both hypertension knowledge and a chronic disease self-efficacy scale. The AURA is brief, valid, has low reading demands, and is an appropriate tool for use among patients with chronic illness. It may also be useful in identifying and assisting patients who are at risk for errors or non-adherence with self-care behaviors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10810730.2010.500349

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients who lack confidence in communicating with providers are indirectly at risk of nonadherence because they may misunderstand instructions or not report side effects.

    “Patients lacking confidence in their ability to effectively communicate with their providers (e.g., factor 1) are indirectly at risk for nonadherence to treatment regimens, as they may misunderstand treatment instructions or fail to report adverse side effects (58).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Bandura A 1986 A social foundation of thought and action A social cognitive theory Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Clayman, M. L., Pandit, A. U., Bergeron, A. R., Cameron, K. A., Ross, E., & Wolf, M. S.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Clayman, Marla L.
Venue
Journal of Health Communication
Published
2010-08-31
Volume
15
Issue
sup2
Pages
72-79
ISSN
  • 1081-0730 (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0415
OpenAlex
W1969728816
Cited by
63
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Communication (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K12HD055884)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
patient-provider communication, hypertension, chronic disease self-efficacy, health literacy, scale development, self-care adherence, disease knowledge
MeSH terms
Chicago, Chronic Disease, Communication, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Louisiana, Male, Memory, Michigan, Middle Aged, Physician-Patient Relations, Self Care, Reproducibility of Results, Self Efficacy, Comprehension, Qualitative Research, Health Literacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review