Dataset Information

Common Laboratory Results Frequently Misunderstood by a Sample of Mechanical Turk Users.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

More patients are receiving their test results via patient portals. Given test results are written using medical jargon, there has been concern that patients may misinterpret these results. Using sample colonoscopy and Pap smear results, our objective was to assess how frequently people can identify the correct diagnosis and when a patient should follow up with a provider.

Methods

We used Mechanical Turk-a crowdsourcing tool run by Amazon that enables easy and fast gathering of users to perform tasks like answering questions or identifying objects-to survey individuals who were shown six sample test results (three colonoscopy, three Pap smear) ranging in complexity. For each case, respondents answered multiple choice questions on the correct diagnosis and recommended return time.

Results

Among the three colonoscopy cases (n = 642) and three Pap smear cases (n = 642), 63% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 60-67%) and 53% (95% CI: 49-57%) of the respondents chose the correct diagnosis, respectively. For the most complex colonoscopy and Pap smear cases, only 29% (95% CI: 23-35%) and 9% (95% CI: 5-13%) chose the correct diagnosis.

Conclusion

People frequently misinterpret colonoscopy and Pap smear test results. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on assisting patients in interpretation.

SUBMITTER: Qureshi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6415984 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Internet interventions face significant challenges in recruitment and attrition rates are typically high and problematic. Finding innovative yet scientifically valid avenues for attaining and retaining participants is therefore of considerable importance. The main goal of this study was to compare recruitment process and participants characteristics between two similar randomized control trials of mood management interventions. One of the trials (Bunge et al., 2016) was conducted with participants recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk (AMT), and the other trial recruited via Unpaid Internet Resources (UIR). Methods:The AMT sample (Bunge et al., 2016) consisted of 765 adults, and the UIR sample (recruited specifically for this study) consisted of 329 adult US residents. Participants' levels of depression, anxiety, confidence, motivation, and perceived usefulness of the intervention were assessed. The AMT sample was financially compensated whereas the UIR was not. Results:AMT yielded higher recruitment rates per month (p?<?.05). At baseline, the AMT sample reported significantly lower depression and anxiety scores (p?<?.001 and p?<?.005, respectively) and significantly higher mood, motivation, and confidence (all p?<?.001) compared to the UIR sample. AMT participants spent significantly less time on the site (p?<?.05) and were more likely to complete follow-ups than the UIR sample (p?<?.05). Both samples reported a significant increase in their level of confidence and motivation from pre- to post-intervention. AMT participants showed a significant increase in perceived usefulness of the intervention (p?<?.0001), whereas the UIR sample did not (p?=?.1642). Conclusions:By using AMT, researchers can recruit very rapidly and obtain higher retention rates; however, these participants may not be representative of the general online population interested in clinical interventions. Considering that AMT and UIR participants differed in most baseline variables, data from clinical studies resulting from AMT samples should be interpreted with caution.