Does Rewording MRI Reports Improve Patient Understanding and Emotional Response to a Clinical Report?

Bossen, Jeroen K. J.; Hageman, Michiel G.J.S.; King, John D.; Ring, David

doi:10.1007/s11999-013-3100-x

Cited by 28 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although patients desire access to their report [37], and are increasingly receiving it through their electronic medical records, only two guidelines consider the patient, and only to state that the reporting radiologist should consider that the patient may read the report. Methods to reduce patient distress and anxiety that have been explored include rewording imaging reports to use simpler and more neutral language [38], including patient-oriented explanations of complex medical terms along with diagrams [39,40], and lay language summaries [41]. Insertion of benchmark epidemiological data providing information similar to normal ranges for laboratory tests has also been proposed and investigated [42,43].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Imaging reports are the primary method of communicating diagnostic imaging findings between the radiologist and the referring clinician. Guidelines produced by professional bodies provide guidance on content and format of imaging reports, but the extent to which they consider comprehensibility for referring clinicians and their patients is unclear. The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which radiology reporting guidelines consider comprehensibility of imaging reports for referring clinicians and patients. We performed a scoping review of English-language diagnostic imaging reporting guidelines. We searched electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, Embase) and websites of radiological professional organisations to identify guidelines. The extent to which the guidelines recommended essential report features such as technical information, content, format and language, as well as features to enhance comprehensibility, such as lay language summaries, was recorded. Six guidelines from professional bodies representing radiologists from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Hong Kong, the UK and Europe were identified from the search. Inconsistencies exist between guidelines in their recommendations, and they rarely consider that patients may read the report. No guideline made recommendations about the reporting of results considering the clinical context, and none recommended features preferred by patients such as lay language summaries. This review identifies an opportunity for future radiology reporting guidelines to give greater consideration to referring clinician and patient preferences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While imaging results and their interpretation was the least mentioned theme in the general themes categories of phase 1, it was the second most common theme in the explicit fear-related themes in phase 4. Patients' worries, complaints and concerns regarding radiological reports have been previously described (Bossen, Hageman, King, & Ring, 2013;Hong et al, 2017;Stewart & Loftus, 2018). Medical jargon, specifically if contained in imaging results, is often threatening to patients, and may be misinterpreted and negatively affect their emotions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Medical jargon, specifically if contained in imaging results, is often threatening to patients, and may be misinterpreted and negatively affect their emotions. For that reason, it has been proposed to reword reports and correspondence in a less threatening and more optimistic way in order to ensure better understanding of the report and its meaning (Bossen et al., 2013). Furthermore, it was suggested that the use of alternative terms with patients may help to prevent negative emotions and lead to the adoption of better coping strategies (Stewart & Loftus, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individuals with back and neck pain on medical forums: What do they mention? What do they fear?

Mintz

Weisman

Springer

et al. 2020

European Journal of Pain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The use of online medical forums is on the rise globally. Data scraping is a method of extracting website content using an automated computer program. We scraped users' questions regarding back and neck pain (BNP) from popular Israeli online medical forums. We aimed to identify the sort of questions being asked about BNP, and to analyse explicit themes that characterize their questions. Methods: Six leading Israeli BNP forums were identified. In phase 1, Python scripts scraped 12,418 questions into a data set. In phase 2-five themes were identified: Surgery (n = 2,957); health care professions (n = 2,361); Sports (n = 2,304); drugs (n = 1,419) and interpretation of imaging (n = 845). Phase 3-included the categorization of explicit fear-related words by the authors. Phase 4-analysis of explicit fear-related themes yielded 402 questions. Results: Gender was identified for 394 users, and age was identified for 181 users. A total of 248 users (61.6%) were women and 146 men (36.3%). Mean age 36.3 ± 16.15 for women and 35.5 ± 16.1 for men. The most commonly expressed fears were related to: invasive procedures, 30.9% (131 questions); fear of serious condition or misdiagnosis, 17.0% (72 questions); General concerns, 13.7% (58 questions); fear of worsening or relapse, 12.3% (52 questions); adverse effects of oral drugs or radiation, 10.8% (46 questions) and concerns related to lifestyle, 9.7% (41 questions). Conclusions: Web scraping is a feasible strategy with which to explore medical forums and the above-mentioned themes, all of which are of potential clinical significance. Significance: Using automated algorithms, a total of 12,369 questions from online back and neck medical forums were scraped and analysed. Secondary analysis categorized fear-related themes that were mentioned by users. Identifying and addressing patients' fear has potential to improve communication and therapeutic outcome. For example, questions regarding surgery were typically asked after the option was mentioned by a physician. This insight should encourage physicians to devote extra time explaining the possible implications of surgery, should they consider it as an option.

show abstract

“…The mock laboratory test report used in the patient survey was based on a typical US commercial laboratory report that physicians and patients receive. However, this typical report was revised based on the findings from the physician study within this research and based on recommendations for patient-facing health care information, as discussed in patient engagement literature 14,24. The resulting mock laboratory report included explanatory information about the laboratory test and patient resources based on information from quality patient educational websites written by health care professionals 27,32.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want?

Kelman¹,

Robinson²,

Cochin³

et al. 2016

PPA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore patient and physician perspectives on current laboratory test reporting practices and to elicit ideas for improvement.MethodsTwo independent studies were conducted. The first solicited members of an online physician community for opinions on current laboratory test reporting practices and possible improvements. The second addressed the same topic, but solicited patient feedback, and included an evaluation of a mock laboratory test report for the rheumatoid factor blood test.ResultsBoth physicians and patients expressed a desire for patient-friendly information on laboratory reports. Physicians expressed a need for education for patients around false-positive and false-negative results within laboratory reports, while patients sought context around the meaning of results, relevance to other tests, and follow-up steps.ConclusionPhysicians and patients see value in enhancing laboratory test reports to improve communication. While reports should include the context that patients value, they should also contain cautionary interpretation emphasized by physicians. Patient consultation on improving laboratory reports may help improve such patient-focused communication and promote greater patient understanding of health information, thereby increasing patient participation in their own health care and improving outcomes.Practice implicationsLaboratory reports are typically designed by experts. Including patients in laboratory report design may facilitate communication and improve outcomes through better patient engagement.

show abstract

Does Rewording MRI Reports Improve Patient Understanding and Emotional Response to a Clinical Report?

Cited by 28 publications

References 17 publications

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

Enhancing clinician and patient understanding of radiology reports: a scoping review of international guidelines

Individuals with back and neck pain on medical forums: What do they mention? What do they fear?

Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About