Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34264197›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2021

Communicating Guideline Recommendations Using Graphic Narrative Versus Text-Based Broadcast Screensavers: Design and Implementation Study.

Lauren Sinnenberg, Craig A Umscheid, Frances S Shofer, Damien Leri, Zachary F Meisel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Lauren SinnenbergDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2443-2927
Craig A UmscheidBiological Sciences Division, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1853-1013
Frances S ShoferDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6813-4791
Damien LeriPenn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2703-947X
Zachary F MeiselDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8474-7993

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of graphic narratives, defined as stories that use images for narration, is growing in health communication.

objectiveThe aim of this study was to describe the design and implementation of a graphic narrative screensaver (GNS) to communicate a guideline recommendation (ie, avoiding low-value acid suppressive therapy [AST] use in hospital inpatients) and examine the comparative effectiveness of the GNS versus a text-based screensaver (TBS) on clinical practice (ie, low-value AST prescriptions) and clinician recall.

methodsDuring a 2-year period, the GNS and the TBS were displayed on inpatient clinical workstations. The numbers of new AST prescriptions were examined in the four quarters before, the three quarters during, and the one quarter after screensavers were implemented. Additionally, an electronic survey was sent to resident physicians 1 year after the intervention to assess screensaver recall.

resultsDesigning an aesthetically engaging graphic that could be rapidly understood was critical in the development of the GNS. The odds of receiving an AST prescription on medicine and medicine subspecialty services after the screensavers were implemented were lower for all four quarters (ie, GNS and TBS broadcast together, only TBS broadcast, only GNS broadcast, and no AST screensavers broadcast) compared to the quarter prior to implementation (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.92; OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80-0.95; and OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.89, respectively; P<.001 for all comparisons). There were no statistically significant decreases for other high-volume services, such as the surgical services. These declines appear to have begun prior to screensaver implementation. When surveyed about the screensaver content 1 year later, resident physicians recalled both the GNS and TBS (43/70, 61%, vs 54/70, 77%; P=.07) and those who recalled the screensaver were more likely to recall the main message of the GNS compared to the TBS (30/43, 70%, vs 1/54, 2%; P<.001).

conclusionsIt is feasible to use a graphic narrative embedded in a broadcast screensaver to communicate a guideline recommendation, but further study is needed to determine the impact of graphic narratives on clinical practice.

Indexed as

clinical workstationeducationgraphic narrativesguideline disseminationguidelineshealth communicationmedical educationmedical informaticsscreensaverworkstation

Identifiers

PMID34264197
PMCPMC8713086

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.