Evidence-based narratives to improve recall of opioid prescribing guidelines: a randomized experiment

Physicians adopt evidence-based guidelines with variable consistency. Narratives, or stories, offer a novel dissemination strategy for clinical recommendations. The study objective was to compare whether evidence-based narrative versus traditional summary improved recall of opioid prescribing guidelines from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP).

This was a prospective, randomized controlled experiment to compare whether narrative versus summary promoted short-term recall of six themes contained in the ACEP opioid guideline. The experiment was modeled after the free-recall test, an established technique in studies of memory. At a regional conference, emergency physicians (EPs) were randomized to read either a summary of the guideline (control) or a narrative (intervention). The fictional narrative was constructed to match the summary in content and length. One hour after reading the text, participants listed all content that they could recall. Two reviewers independently scored the responses to assess recall of the six themes. The primary outcome was the total number of themes recalled per participant. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of responses in each study arm that recalled individual themes and the proportion of responses in each arm that contained falsely recalled or extraneous information.

Ninety-five physicians were randomized. Eighty-two physicians completed the experiment, for a response rate of 86%. The mean of the total number of themes recalled per participant was 3.1 in the narrative arm versus 2.0 in the summary arm (difference = 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.6 to 1.7). For three themes, the proportion of responses that recalled the theme was significantly greater in the narrative arm compared to the summary arm, with the differences ranging from 20% to 51%. For one theme, recall was significantly greater in the summary arm. For two themes, there was no statistically significant difference in recall between the arms. In the summary arm, 54% of responses were found to contain falsely recalled or extraneous information versus 21% of responses in the narrative arm (difference = 33%, 95% CI = 14% to 53%).

Physicians exposed to a narrative about opioid guidelines were more likely to recall guideline content at 1 hour than those exposed to a summary of the guidelines. Future studies should examine whether the incorporation of narratives in dissemination campaigns improves guideline adoption and changes clinical practice