Breaking Narrative Ground

Innovative Methods for Rigorously Eliciting and Assessing Patient Narratives

Published in: HSR, Health Services Research, 2016

Posted on on May 09, 2016

by Rachel Grob, Mark Schlesinger, Andrew M. Parker, Dale Shaller, Lacey Rose Barre, Steven C. Martino, Melissa L. Finucane, Lise Rybowski, Jennifer L. Cerully

Read More

Access further information on this document at HSR

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVE: To design a methodology for rigorously eliciting narratives about patients' experiences with clinical care that is potentially useful for public reporting and quality improvement. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Two rounds of experimental data (N = 48 each) collected in 2013–2014, using a nationally representative Internet panel. STUDY DESIGN: Our study (1) articulates and operationalizes criteria for assessing narrative elicitation protocols; (2) establishes a "gold standard" for assessment of such protocols; and (3) creates and tests a protocol for narratives about outpatient treatment experiences.DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We randomized participants between telephone and web-based modalities and between protocols placed before and after a closed-ended survey. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Elicited narratives can be assessed relative to a gold standard using four criteria: (1) meaningfulness, (2) completeness, (3) whether the narrative accurately reflects the balance of positive and negative events, and (4) representativeness, which reflects the protocol's performance across respondent subgroups. We demonstrate that a five-question protocol that has been tested and refined yields three- to sixfold increases in completeness and four- to tenfold increases in meaningfulness, compared to a single open-ended question. It performs equally well for healthy and sick patients. CONCLUSIONS: Narrative elicitation protocols suitable for inclusion in extant patient experience surveys can be designed and tested against objective performance criteria, thus advancing the science of public reporting.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.