Dataset Information

Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Patient portals are considered valuable instruments for self-management of long term conditions, however, there are concerns over how patients might interpret and act on the clinical information they access. We hypothesized that visual cues improve patients' abilities to correctly interpret laboratory test results presented through patient portals. We also assessed, by applying eye-tracking methods, the relationship between risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. METHODS:We conducted a controlled study with 20 kidney transplant patients. Participants viewed three different graphical presentations in each of low, medium, and high risk clinical scenarios composed of results for 28 laboratory tests. After viewing each clinical scenario, patients were asked how they would have acted in real life if the results were their own, as a proxy of their risk interpretation. They could choose between: 1) Calling their doctor immediately (high interpreted risk); 2) Trying to arrange an appointment within the next 4 weeks (medium interpreted risk); 3) Waiting for the next appointment in 3 months (low interpreted risk). For each presentation, we assessed accuracy of patients' risk interpretation, and employed eye tracking to assess and compare visual search behaviour. RESULTS:Misinterpretation of risk was common, with 65% of participants underestimating the need for action across all presentations at least once. Participants found it particularly difficult to interpret medium risk clinical scenarios. Participants who consistently understood when action was needed showed a higher visual search efficiency, suggesting a better strategy to cope with information overload that helped them to focus on the laboratory tests most relevant to their condition. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms patients' difficulties in interpreting laboratories test results, with many patients underestimating the need for action, even when abnormal values were highlighted or grouped together. Our findings raise patient safety concerns and may limit the potential of patient portals to actively involve patients in their own healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Fraccaro P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5809992 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMany clinical microbiology laboratories report on cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility testing (cAST) data on a regular basis. Criteria for generation of cAST reports, however, are often obscure and inconsistent. Whereas the CLSI has published a guideline for analysis and presentation of cAST data, national guidelines directed at clinical microbiology laboratories are not available in Europe. Thus, we sought to describe the influence of different parameters in the process of cAST data analysis in the setting of a German routine clinical microbiology laboratory during 2 consecutive years.Material and methodsWe developed various program scripts to assess the consequences ensuing from different algorithms for calculation of cumulative antibiograms from the data collected in our clinical microbiology laboratory in 2013 and 2014.ResultsOne of the most pronounced effects was caused by exclusion of screening cultures for multi-drug resistant organisms which decreased the MRSA rate in some cases to one third. Dependent on the handling of duplicate isolates, i.e. isolates of the same species recovered from successive cultures on the same patient during the time period analyzed, we recorded differences in resistance rates of up to 5 percentage points for S. aureus, E. coli and K. pneumoniae and up to 10 percentage points for P. aeruginosa. Stratification by site of care and specimen type, testing of antimicrobials selectively on resistant isolates, change of interpretation rules and analysis at genus level instead of species level resulted in further changes of calculated antimicrobial resistance rates.ConclusionThe choice of parameters for cAST data analysis may have a substantial influence on calculated antimicrobial resistance rates. Consequently, comparability of cAST reports from different clinical microbiology laboratories may be limited. We suggest that laboratories communicate the strategy used for cAST data analysis as long as national guidelines for standardized cAST data analysis and reporting do not exist in Europe.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Abnormal results of diagnostic laboratory tests can be difficult to interpret when disease probability is very low. Although most physicians generally do not use Bayesian calculations to interpret abnormal results, their estimates of pretest disease probability and reasons for ordering diagnostic tests may--in a more implicit manner--influence test interpretation and further management. A better understanding of this influence may help to improve test interpretation and management. Therefore, the objective of this study was to examine the influence of physicians' pretest disease probability estimates, and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests, on test result interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. METHODS: Prospective study among 87 primary care physicians in the Netherlands who each ordered laboratory tests for 25 patients. They recorded their reasons for ordering the tests (to exclude or confirm disease or to reassure patients) and their pretest disease probability estimates. Upon receiving the results they recorded how they interpreted the tests, their posttest probability estimates and further management. Logistic regression was used to analyse whether the pretest probability and the reasons for ordering tests influenced the interpretation, the posttest probability estimates and the decisions on further management. RESULTS: The physicians ordered tests for diagnostic purposes for 1253 patients; 742 patients had an abnormal result (64%). Physicians' pretest probability estimates and their reasons for ordering diagnostic tests influenced test interpretation, posttest probability estimates and further management. Abnormal results of tests ordered for reasons of reassurance were significantly more likely to be interpreted as normal (65.8%) compared to tests ordered to confirm a diagnosis or exclude a disease (27.7% and 50.9%, respectively). The odds for abnormal results to be interpreted as normal were much lower when the physician estimated a high pretest disease probability, compared to a low pretest probability estimate (OR = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.07-0.52, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Interpretation and management of abnormal test results were strongly influenced by physicians' estimation of pretest disease probability and by the reason for ordering the test. By relating abnormal laboratory results to their pretest expectations, physicians may seek a balance between over- and under-reacting to laboratory test results.

Dataset Information

Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets