Live
- Sisodia blames Centre for law, order situation in Delhi
- 'CAG report on Sheesh Mahal will expose Kejriwal misdeeds'
- Congress pledges Rs 2,500 a month for women
- Suburban Train Travellers Assn urges for route extension
- Saini pays tribute at Nada Sahib Gurudwara
- TGCHE revamps undergraduate courses: Chairman
- Hyderabad ideal for chip manufacturing: Sridhar Babu
- For centuries, villagers refrain from meat, alcohol on Sundays
- Metro Rail: First batch of cheques given to affected property owners
- CM expresses concern over declining fertility
Why patients worry more after seeing incomprehensible medical test results
Medical reports worldwide are not written with patients in mind, which increases their overall level of worry as they find test results hard to understand, according to researchers.
New York: Medical reports worldwide are not written with patients in mind, which increases their overall level of worry as they find test results hard to understand, according to researchers.
For example, a standard pathology report is written by a pathologist for a clinical specialist like a surgeon or a cancer doctor or for other pathologists to read, said Cathryn Lapedis, of the Department of Pathology at University of Michigan Health in the US.
In a study published in the journal JAMA, Lapedis and her colleagues tested whether people could understand standard pathology reports and whether a patient-centred report might improve patient understanding.
A patient-centred pathology report gives important information on the patient’s diagnosis in a clear format that minimises medical terminology, she said.
For example, a standard pathology report will include a term like prostatic adenocarcinoma, but the patient-centred report will simply call it prostate cancer.
The team recruited 2,238 adults, aged 55 to 84, who had a prostate but no history of prostate cancer. Participants were provided with a hypothetical scenario in which they were seeking care due to troubling urinary symptoms, received a biopsy and then would receive results from that test through their patient portal.
They were also asked to report their level of worry based on the results.
“We found that most people cannot get basic information — like whether or not they have prostate cancer from standard pathology reports. For example, in our participants reviewing the standard University report, only 39 per cent could accurately identify that the report showed cancer,” said Lapedis.
However, 93 per cent of those who received the patient-centred pathology report accurately identified that the report showed prostate cancer.
Participants’ level of worry was more closely associated with their risk level.
The study authors recommend that hospital systems consider including patient-centred pathology reports with standard reports to improve patient understanding.
