No abstract

Objective/Hypothesis To assess for semantic differences regarding the definition of dizziness among otolaryngology patients, otolaryngologists, and non‐otolaryngologist providers. Study Design Cross‐sectional survey. Methods Between March and May 2020, a survey consisting of 20 common descriptors for dizziness within five domains (lightheadedness, motion sensitivity, imbalance, vision complaints, and pain) was completed by patients at two outpatient otolaryngology clinics. Surveys were subsequently obtained from otolaryngology and non‐otolaryngology providers attending a multidisciplinary dizziness lecture. The primary outcome measure was to assess for differences in definition of dizziness between patients and providers. Secondary outcome measures included assessing differences between otolaryngologists and non‐otolaryngologists. Results About 221 patients and 100 providers participated. Patients selected a median of 7 terms compared to 8 for providers (P = .375), although providers had a larger overall distribution of number of terms selected (P = .038). Patients were more likely than providers to define dizziness according to the following domains: lightheadedness (difference 15.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5%–25.3%), vision complaints (difference 21.6%, 95% CI 12.0%–29.6%), and pain (difference 11.5%, 95% CI 4.7%–17.1%). Providers were more likely to define dizziness according to the motion sensitivity domain (difference 13.8%, 95% CI 6.8%–19.6%). Otolaryngology and non‐otolaryngology providers defined dizziness similarly across symptom domains. Conclusion Although patients and providers both view dizziness as imbalance, patients more commonly describe dizziness in the context of lightheadedness, vision complaints, and pain, whereas providers more frequently define dizziness according to motion sensitivity. These semantic differences create an additional barrier to effective patient‐provider communication. Level of Evidence 4. Laryngoscope, 131:E1443–E1449, 2021

No abstract

Objective To examine the impact of military service on health literacy. Study Design Prospective, cross-sectional study. Subjects and Methods The validated Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) with military supplement was administered to sequential adult patients (military and civilian) treated at two outpatient academic military otolaryngology clinics between November and December 2019. Inadequate health literacy, defined by a BHLS score ≤9, was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures included comparisons of inadequate BHLS scores with patient demographics and history of military service. Results Three hundred and eighty-two patients were evaluated during the study period. The median age was 48-57 years, with a majority being male (230, 60.2%), White (264, 69.1%), married (268, 70.2%), and active duty military (303, 79.3%). A minority reported history of PTSD (39, 13%) or traumatic brain injury (29, 9.6%). Overall, very few subjects (10, 2.6%) demonstrated inadequate health literacy. Patients with prior (1.6% vs 6.3%, P < .05) or current (0% vs 5.0%, P < .05) military service had lower rates of inadequate health literary as compared to civilians. Gender, race, marital status, history of PTSD, and history of traumatic brain injury did not significantly impact health literacy. In a multivariate regression model exploring history of military service, age was not predictive of inadequate health literacy. Conclusions Both history of and current military service predict higher health literacy rates for patients treated at military otolaryngology clinics. Widely accessible health care and mandatory health evaluations for service members to maintain deployment readiness may contribute to this finding but warrant additional study.