Cited by 214Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareMedication Adherence and ComplianceHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

A systematic review of interventions to improve recall of medical advice in healthcare consultations

Open access
Watson, Philip Wb, Mckinstry, Brian·2009·Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

Abstract

Background: In order for patients to adhere to healthcare advice, it is essential that they are able to recall this following a consultation. Although psychological research exists which highlights techniques and factors postulated to influence recall, only a limited body of work has been conducted to evaluate their effectiveness in a clinical context. Aim: To carry out a systematic review of intervention trials designed to enhance recall of medical information. Methods: We searched Medline (1950-April 2007); Embase (1980-April 2007); Cinahl (1982-April 2007); PsychINFO (1969-2007); and the Cochrane Library Collection. Secondary searches were made through reference to relevant journals and reference lists from relevant papers/review papers. Results: From 69 papers provisionally identified, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Nine recall interventions had been evaluated (audio recordings, written materials, adjunct questions, prompt sheets, visual aids, cognitive strategies, rehearsal, communication styles and personalized teaching). Despite the experimental and theoretical evidence which could have informed cognitive interventions to enhance recall of healthcare advice, most studies primarily focused on the use of written and/or audio-recorded medical instructions. Although the majority of studies supported these approaches insofar as they enhanced recall, the findings were equivocal. Conclusion: While written and tape-recorded instructions appear to improve recall in most situations, a dearth of interventions incorporating psychological theory was readily apparent. Further research is required in clinical settings to determine if cognitive interventions based on a more over-arching psychological model of recall are effective.

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 · 10.1258/jrsm.2009.090013

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 81 · Cited by 214

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. 51 Andre T. Questions and learning from reading. Questioning Exchange 1987; 1 :47-86
  2. 66 Swenson SL, Buell S, Zettler P, White M, Ruston D, Lo B. Patient Centred Communication - Do patients really prefer it? J Gen Intern Med 2004; 19 :1069-79
  3. 76 Scott JT, Harmsen M, Prictor MJ, Entwistle VA, Sowden AJ, Watt I. Recordings or summaries of consultations for people with cancer. Cochrane Database System Rev 2003, Issue 2. Art No.: CD001539. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD001539 · DOI

Authors
Watson, P. W., & Mckinstry, B.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Watson, Philip Wb
Venue
Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine
Published
2009-06
Volume
102
Issue
6
Pages
235-243
ISSN
  • 0141-0768 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1095
OpenAlex
W2169374596
Cited by
214
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
1.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Medication Adherence and Compliance
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
patient adherence, health consultation, written instructions, audio recordings, cognitive strategies, rehearsal, visual aids, personalized teaching, communication styles
MeSH terms
Delivery of Health Care, Humans, Patient Compliance, Patient Education as Topic, Mental Recall

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