Dataset Information

Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making. DESIGN:Systematic review. METHODS:Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS:Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition. CONCLUSIONS:Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.

SUBMITTER: Nickel B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5541578 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.

Nickel Brooke B Barratt Alexandra A Copp Tessa T Moynihan Ray R McCaffery Kirsten K

BMJ open 20170710 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Methods</h4>Studies were included that co ...[more]

PMID: 28698318

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEnd-of-life preferences may change over time, e.g. due to illness progression or life events. Research on stability of end-of-life preferences has largely focused on life-sustaining treatments in seriously ill patients or medical decision-making based on hypothetical illness scenarios and possible treatment options. Few studies focus on community-dwellers in natural settings. The aim of this study was thus to explore if and how community-dwelling, older adults' prioritizations and reasoning about values and preferences for future end-of-life care change over time.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods design, we explored stability of end-of-life preferences in older community-dwelling adults without imminent end-of-life care needs. At two timepoints (T1 and T2), 5.5-12 months apart, 52 individuals discussed what would be important to them at the end-of-life, through open conversations and while using DöBra cards, a Swedish version of GoWish cards. Participants ranked their most important card statements from 1 to 10. Stability in card rankings, i.e. a card recurring in the top-10 ranking at T2 regardless of position, was explored using descriptive statistics and non-parametric analyses. Participants' reasoning about card choices were explored with longitudinal qualitative analysis.ResultsStability between T1 and T2 in the top-10 priorities ranged from 20 to 80%, median 60%. Stability in cards rankings could not be explained by changes in participants' health status, extent of card use (no/little/frequent use) between interviews, or days between T1 and T2, nor was it related to demographic variables. Qualitative analysis showed that consistent reasoning was not always paired with consistency in card choices and changed card choices were not always related to changes in reasoning.ConclusionsLongitudinal exploration combining DöBra card rankings with underlying reasoning about end-of-life preferences over time furthers knowledge on the dynamics between values and preferences in end-of-life decision-making. Individuals' end-of-life preferences in form of card choices were relatively stable over time albeit with large variation between different individuals. However, the values and underlying reasoning that participants used to motivate their choices appeared more stable than ranking of card choices. We thus conclude that concurrent conversation-based exploration is a more comprehensive indicator of end-of-life values and preferences over time than ranking of cards alone.

Dataset Information

Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.

Publications

Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets