– Poor communication results in 19% higher risk of non-adherence
– Good communication results in 2.16-fold greater patient adherence
– Communication training results in 1.62-fold greater patient adherence
1. Hall JA, et al. Med Care. 1988;26:657-675.
2. Stewart MA. CMAJ. 1995;152:1423-1433.
3. Ong LM, et al. Soc Sci Med. 1995;40:903-918.
4. Haskard Zolnierek KB, et al. Med Care. 2009;47:826-34.
This is an exciting study.
What I'm wondering is how did authors neutralize significant variation between quality and value inside each educational/learning format? We know that no technology/format can compensate for not the best learning design; that well-designed lecture or even printed book will be more valuable than not so well designed technology-enhanced activity.
I'm also wondering can we map the discussion with a patient and changes that follow with the Transtheoretical Stages of Change model (Prochaska). I'm wondering how the follow-up stages were supported?
35 E. Wacker Dr. Suite 850, Chicago, IL 60601-2106
312-224-2522 firstname.lastname@example.org contact us subscribe to our mailing list
© 2017 Society for Academic CME (SACME)