Written communication

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511543579.112

Written communication

from Psychology, health and illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 December 2014

Edited by

John Weinman and

Lorraine M. Noble: Affiliation:
University College London
Susan Ayers: Affiliation:
University of Sussex
Andrew Baum: Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Chris McManus: Affiliation:
St Mary's Hospital Medical School
Stanton Newman: Affiliation:
University College and Middlesex School of Medicine
Kenneth Wallston: Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University School of Nursing
John Weinman: Affiliation:
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St Thomas's
Robert West: Affiliation:
St George's Hospital Medical School, University of London

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter considers two domains of written communication in health care: (1) written information for patients, and (2) written information about patients.

Written information for patients

What is it for?

Written materials are used:

to provide information, for example, about investigations, screening, health promotion, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment and aftercare (e.g. discharge planning)
to aid decision-making, for example, about investigations, treatments or screening, or as part of a process to obtain a record of informed consent to treatment or a clinical trial
to encourage uptake of healthcare (e.g. investigations, screening, or treatment)
to train patients to communicate more effectively in consultations with healthcare professionals.

When is it needed?

Studies have consistently found that the majority of patients want to be kept informed about their condition and treatment, and that they want more information than they are typically provided (Audit Commission, 1993; Benbassat et al., 1998). In addition, many studies have shown that patients have gaps in understanding and recall following face-to-face consultations (Ley, 1988). Investigators have concluded that written information plays an important role in routine care, either to provide a reminder of what has been discussed or more detailed information.

Supplementary written information is also useful when there are problems which create barriers to the effectiveness of face-to-face communication, for example:

i. when there are high levels of emotion (such as fear) or ‘high stakes’ consultations (e.g. serious illness)
ii. due to the complexity or quantity of information (e.g. presenting statistical information about treatment options, or lists of medication side effects)
iii. when communication is affected by patient factors (e.g. age, disability, cognitive impairments, language or cultural issues).

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Psychology, Health and Medicine , pp. 517 - 522

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511543579.112 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Access to Health Records Act (1990). London: HMSO.

Andrus, M. R. & Roth, M. T. (2002). Health literacy: a review. Pharmacotherapy, 22, 282–302.Google Scholar

Audit Commission, (1993). What seems to be the matter: communication between hospitals and patients. London: HMSO.

Beaver, K. & Luker, K. (1997). Readability of patient information booklets for women with breast cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 31, 95–102.Google Scholar

Benbassat, J., Pilpel, D. & Tidhar, M. (1998). Patients' preferences for participation in clinical decision making: a review of published surveys. Behavioral Medicine, 24, 81–8.Google Scholar

Benjamin, D. M. (2003). Reducing medication errors and increasing patient safety: case studies in clinical pharmacology. Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 43, 768–83.Google Scholar

Biegler, P. (2003). Should patient consent be required to write a do not resuscitate order?Journal of Medical Ethics, 29, 359–63.Google Scholar

Blankenship, J. C., Menapace, F. J., Fox, L. S. & Frey, C. M. (1999). Telephone reporting of the results of cardiac procedures: feasibility and primary care physician preferences. American Journal of Medicine, 106, 521–6.Google Scholar

Bruera, E., Pituskin, E., Calder, K., Neumann, C. M. & Hanson, J. (1999). The addition of an audiocassette recording of a consultation to written recommendations for patients with advanced cancer: a randomized, controlled trial. Cancer, 86, 2420–5.Google Scholar

Cantor, M. D., Braddock, C. H. III, Derse, A. R.et al. (2003). Do not resuscitate orders and medical futility. Archieves of Internal Medicine, 163, 2689–94.Google Scholar

Coulter, A., Entwhistle, V. & Gilbert, D. (1999). Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?British Medical Journal, 318, 318–22.Google Scholar

Covinsky, K. E., Fuller, J. D., Yaffe, K.et al. (2000). Communication and decision-making in seriously ill patients: findings of the SUPPORT project. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48(Suppl. 5), S187–93.Google Scholar

Data Protection Act (1998). London: The Stationery Office.

Davison, B. J., Kirk, P., Degner, L. F. & Hassard, T. H. (1999). Information and patient participation in screening for prostate cancer. Patient Education and Counseling, 37, 255–63.Google Scholar

Department of Health (2000). The NHS Plan. London: The Stationery Office.

Department of Health (2002). Good practice in consent implementation guide: consent to examination or treatment. London: Department of Health.

Dixon-Woods, M. (2001). Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets. Social Science and Medicine, 52, 1417–32.Google Scholar

Ehrenberger, H. E. (2001). Cancer clinical trial patients in the information age: a pilot study. Cancer Practice, 9, 191–7.Google Scholar

Eng, T. R., Gustafson, D. H., Henderson, J., Jimison, H. & Patrick, K. (1999). Introduction to evaluation of interactive health communication applications. Science Panel on interactive communication and health. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 16, 10–15.Google Scholar

Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O. & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2691–700.Google Scholar

Forrest, C. B., Glade, G. B., Baker, A. E.et al. (2000). Coordination of specialty referrals and physician satisfaction with referral care. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154, 499–506.Google Scholar

Harrington, J., Noble, L. M. & Newman, S. P. (2004). Improving patients' communication with doctors: a systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Education and Counseling, 52, 7–16.Google Scholar

Johnson, A., Sandford, J. & Tyndall, J. (2003). Written and verbal information versus verbal information only for patients being discharged from acute hospital settings to home. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4, Art. no. CD003716.Google Scholar

Kenny, T., Wilson, R. G., Purves, I. N.et al. (1998). A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): a review of past, present and future use. Family Practice, 15, 471–9.Google Scholar

Lavelle-Jones, C., Byrne, D. J., Rice, P. & Cuschieri, A. (1993). Factors affecting quality of informed consent. British Medical Journal, 306, 885–90.Google Scholar

Ley, P. (1988). Communicating with patients. London: Chapman & Hall.

Maly, R. C., Leake, B. & Silliman, R. A. (2003). Health care disparities in older patients with breast carcinoma: informational support from physicians. Cancer, 97, 1517–27.Google Scholar

Martin, K., Carter, L., Balciunas, D.et al. (2003). The impact of verbal communication on physician prescribing patterns in hospitalized patients with diabetes. Diabetes Educator, 29, 827–36.Google Scholar

McKay, D. L., Berkowitz, J. M., Blumberg, J. B. & Goldberg, J. P. (2004). Communicating cardiovascular disease risk due to elevated homocysteine levels: using the EPPM to develop print materials. Health Education and Behavior, 31, 355–71.Google Scholar

Miaskowski, C., Dodd, M., West, C.et al. (2004). Randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of a self-care intervention to improve cancer pain management. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 1713–20.Google Scholar

Olver, I. N., Turrell, S. J., Olszewski, N. A. & Willson, K. J. (1995). Impact of an information and consent form on patients having chemotherapy. Medical Journal of Australia, 162, 82–3.Google Scholar

Powsner, S. M., Costa, J. & Homer, R. J. (2000). Clinicians are from Mars and pathologists are from Venus. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 124, 1040–6.Google Scholar

Schillinger, D., Bindman, A., Wang, F., Stewart, A. & Piette, J. (2004). Functional health literacy and the quality of physician–patient communication among diabetes patients. Patient Education and Counseling, 52, 315–23.Google Scholar

Singer, P. A., Martin, D. K., Lavery, J. V.et al. (1998). Reconceptualizing advance care planning from the patient's perspective. Archives of Internal Medicine, 158, 879–84.Google Scholar

Umefjord, G., Petersson, G. & Hamberg, K. (2003). Reasons for consulting a doctor on the Internet: web survey of users of an ask the doctor service. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 5, Article e26.Google Scholar

Wald, C., Fahy, M., Walker, Z. & Livingstone, G. (2003). What to tell dimensia caregivers: the rule of threes. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 18, 313–17.Google Scholar

White, P. (2004) Copying referral letters to patients: prepare for change. Patient Education and Counseling, 54, 159–61.Google Scholar

Book contents

Written communication

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive