Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to explore patient and physician perspectives on current laboratory test reporting practices and to elicit ideas for improvement.

Methods

Two 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.

Results

Both 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.

Conclusion

Physicians 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 implications

Laboratory reports are typically designed by experts. Including patients in laboratory report design may facilitate communication and improve outcomes through better patient engagement.

SUBMITTER: Kelman A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5171200 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Kelman Ariella A Robinson Caroline O CO Cochin Elisenda E Ahluwalia Nina J NJ Braverman Julia J Chiauzzi Emil E Simacek Kristina K

Patient preference and adherence 20161213

<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to explore patient and physician perspectives on current laboratory test reporting practices and to elicit ideas for improvement.<h4>Methods</h4>Two 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 ...[more]

PMID: 28008236

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centered care for people with disability requires effective communication and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). OBJECTIVE:To understand physicians' perspectives on communication experiences with people with disability. DESIGN:Twenty semi-structured individual interviews. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for analysis. SETTING:Massachusetts, October 2017-January 2018. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty physicians ranging from 8 to 51 years in practice in primary care or 4 other specialties. MEASUREMENTS:Commonly expressed themes around communication with people with disability. RESULTS:Concerns coalesced around 4 broad categories: communication experiences with people who are deaf or hard of hearing, communication with people who are blind or have vision impairment, communication with people who have intellectual disability, and recommendations for improving communication. Although participants in this study reported various efforts to communicate effectively with patients with hearing or vision loss or intellectual disability, many gaps appear to remain, as well as instances where physicians' preferences run counter to patients' wishes and the ADA. Examples include physicians' preferences for remote, online sign language interpreters despite patients desiring in-person interpreters and suggesting that patients arrange for their own interpreters. Few educational materials are available in braille, and electronic medical records may not allow documents to be printed in large font for persons with low vision. Communicating with patients with intellectual disability raised particular concerns, with participants often preferring to interact with caregivers and minimal efforts to involve patients. CONCLUSIONS:Effective communication is necessary for ensuring the quality of health care for people with disability, and it is legally required under the ADA. Our results suggest that important gaps may remain in ensuring effective communication, and some practicing physicians could benefit from formal training in effective methods for communicating with patients with disability.

Project description:BackgroundPatient portals are promising tools to increase patient involvement and allow them to manage their health. To optimally facilitate patients, laboratory test results should be explained in easy language. Patient characteristics affect the usage of portals and the user satisfaction. However, limited research is available, specified for online communicating laboratory test results, on whether portal use and acceptance differ between groups.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the effect of patient characteristics (gender, age, education, and chronic disease) on the self-efficacy and perceived usability of an online patient portal that communicates diagnostic test results.MethodsWe used the online-administered eHealth impact questionnaire (eHIQ) to explore patients' attitudes toward the portal. Patients visiting the portal were asked to complete the questionnaire and to answer questions regarding gender, age, education, and chronic disease. The subscale "information and presentation" of the eHIQ assessed the usability of the patient portal and the subscale "motivation and confidence to act" assessed self-efficacy to determine whether patients were motivated to act on the presented information. Age, gender, education, and chronic disease were the determinants to analyze the effect on usability and self-efficacy. Descriptive analyses were performed to explore patient characteristics, usability, and self-efficacy. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed with age, gender, education, and chronic disease as determinants, and usability and self-efficacy as outcomes.ResultsThe questionnaire was completed by 748 respondents, of which 428 (57.2%) were female, 423 (56.6%) were highly educated, and 509 (68%) had no chronic disease. The mean age was 58.5 years (SD 16.4). Higher age, high education, and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were significant determinants for decreased usability; respectively, b=-.094, 95% CI -1147 to 0.042 (P<.001); b=-2.512, 95% CI -4.791 to -0.232 (P=.03); and b=-3.630, 95% CI -6.545 to -0.715 (P=.02). High education was also a significant determinant for a lower self-efficacy (b=-3.521, 95% CI -6.469 to -0.572; P=.02). Other determinants were not significant.ConclusionsThis study showed that the higher-educated users of a patient portal scored lower on usability and self-efficacy. Usability was also lower for older people and for patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The results portal is not tailored for different groups. Further research should investigate which factors from a patient's perspective are essential to tailor the portal for different groups and how a result portal can be optimally integrated within the daily practice of a doctor.

Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly able to access their laboratory test results via patient portals. However, merely providing access does not guarantee comprehension. Patients could experience confusion when reviewing their test results.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to examine the challenges and needs of patients when comprehending laboratory test results.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey with 203 participants and a set of semistructured interviews with 13 participants. We assessed patients' perceived challenges and needs (both informational and technological needs) when they attempted to comprehend test results, factors associated with patients' perceptions, and strategies for improving the design of patient portals to communicate laboratory test results more effectively. Descriptive and correlation analysis and thematic analysis were used to analyze the survey and interview data, respectively.ResultsPatients face a variety of challenges and confusion when reviewing laboratory test results. To better comprehend laboratory results, patients need different types of information, which are grouped into 2 categories-generic information (eg, reference range) and personalized or contextual information (eg, treatment options, prognosis, what to do or ask next). We also found that several intrinsic factors (eg, laboratory result normality, health literacy, and technology proficiency) significantly impact people's perceptions of using portals to view and interpret laboratory results. The desired enhancements of patient portals include providing timely explanations and educational resources (eg, a health encyclopedia), increasing usability and accessibility, and incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology to provide personalized recommendations.ConclusionsPatients face significant challenges in interpreting the meaning of laboratory test results. Designers and developers of patient portals should employ user-centered approaches to improve the design of patient portals to present information in a more meaningful way.

Project description:BackgroundOne of the current major factors of not following up on the abnormal test results is the lack of information about the test results and missing interpretations. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can become a solution to this problem. However, little is known how patients react to the automatically generated interpretations of the test results, and how this can affect a decision to follow up. In this research, we study how patients perceive the interpretations of the laboratory tests automatically generated by a clinical decision support system depending on how they receive these recommendations and how this affects the follow-up rate.MethodsA study of 3200 patients was done querying the regional patient registry. The patients were divided into 4 groups who received: 1. Recommendations automatically generated by a CDSS with a clear indication of their automatic nature. 2. Recommendations received personally from a doctor with a clear indication of their automatic nature. 3. Recommendations from a doctor with no indication of their automated generation. 4. No recommendations, only the test results. A follow-up rate was calculated as the proportion of patients referred to a laboratory service for a follow-up investigation after receiving a recommendation within two weeks after the first test with abnormal test results had been completed and the interpretation was delivered to the patient. The second phase of the study was a research of the patients' motivation. It was performed with a group of 789 patients.ResultsAll the patients who received interpretations on the abnormal test results demonstrated a significantly higher rate of follow-up (71%) in comparison to the patients who received only test results without interpretations (49%). Patients mention a time factor as a significant benefit of the automatically generated interpretations in comparison to the interpretations they can receive from a doctor.ConclusionThe results of the study show that delivering automatically generated interpretations of test results can support patients in making a decision to follow up. They are trusted by patients and raise their motivations and engagement.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Practice implications

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets