ArticlePloS one2026
Autobiographical memory of validating and invalidating consultations is associated with recall capacity for health information.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Managing chronic pain involves cognitive and emotional challenges that may affect treatment adherence. Patients' ability to remember clinician advice is therefore important. Clinician behaviours may influence these processes. To investigate whether recounting autobiographical memories of perceived validating (vs. invalidating) healthcare experiences influences subsequent recall of health-related information in people living with chronic pain, 245 adults with chronic pain (≥3 months) were recruited online. Eligibility criteria included: age ≥ 18 years, fluent in English, no hearing difficulties or mental health conditions, and at least one healthcare visit in the previous two years. Participants were quasi-randomly assigned to describe either a validating or invalidating consultation they had previously experienced. Before and after this task, participants rated their pain intensity and pain-related fear. Participants then listened to 20 health messages and were later asked to recall them in an incidental memory test. The primary outcome was incidental recall of health messages, operationalised as the likelihood of recalling each of the 20 messages. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and pain-related fear. Recall was analysed using a binomial generalized linear mixed-effects model accounting for individual differences (pain intensity, pain-related fear, immersion in the task, age, sex, and pain duration).Participants who described a validating consultation were more likely to recall health messages than those in the invalidating condition (19% higher odds of recalling each message, based on model estimates). The association was not mediated by change in pain-related fear. These findings indicate that remembering validating consultations might boost retention of health information, highlighting clinician-validation as a potential strategy to support cognitive functioning in people living with chronic pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.