Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28940931›Full record

ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2018

Measuring recall of medical information in non-English-speaking people with cancer: A methodology.

Ruby Lipson-Smith, Amelia Hyatt, Alexandra Murray, Phyllis Butow, Thomas F Hack, Michael Jefford, Uldis Ozolins, Sandra Hale, Penelope Schofield

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Measuring recall of medical information in non-English-speaking people with cancer: A methodology.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Ruby Lipson-SmithCancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1702-8144
Amelia HyattCancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Alexandra MurrayCancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Phyllis ButowSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Thomas F HackCollege of Nursing, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Michael JeffordCancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Uldis OzolinsSchool of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Sandra HaleSchool of Humanities and Languages, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Penelope SchofieldCancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUThe University of Melbourne · AUUNSW Sydney · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Lancashire · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany patients who require an interpreter have difficulty remembering information from their medical consultations. Memory aids such as consultation audio-recordings may be of benefit to these patients. However, there is no established means of measuring patients' memory of medical information.

objectivesThis study aimed to develop a method for eliciting and coding recall of medical information in non-English-speaking patients.

designThis method, called Patient-Interpreter-Clinician coding (PICcode), was developed in the context of a phase II trial conducted in two outpatient oncology clinics in Melbourne, Australia, and was refined iteratively through consultation with an expert panel and piloting. Between-coder differences in early versions of the coding system were resolved through discussion and consensus resulting in refinements to PICcode.

resultsThe final version of PICcode involved transcribing, translating and coding of audio-recorded consultations and semi-structured interviews (SSI). The SSIs were designed to elicit patients' free-recall of medical information. Every unit of medical information in the consultation was identified and categorized in a coding tree. SSIs were coded to identify the extent to which information was recalled from the consultation. DISCUSSION: The iterative changes involved in developing PICcode assisted in clarifying precise details of the process and produced a widely applicable coding system. PICcode is the most comprehensively described method of determining the amount of information that patients who use an interpreter recall from their medical consultations. PICcode can be adapted for English-speaking patients and other healthcare populations.

Indexed as

Communication BarriersEmigration and ImmigrationMental RecallTranslatingAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsReferral and ConsultationVideotape Recordingconsultation contentmedical informationmemorymigrantnon-english speakingoncology

Identifiers

PMID28940931
PMCPMC5750741
OpenAlexW2760627203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.