F A M van der Mee, R P G Ottenheijm, E G S Gentry, J M Nobel, F M Zijta, J W L Cals, J Jansen
{"title":"不同放射学报告格式对患者信息处理的影响:系统综述。","authors":"F A M van der Mee, R P G Ottenheijm, E G S Gentry, J M Nobel, F M Zijta, J W L Cals, J Jansen","doi":"10.1007/s00330-024-11165-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since radiology reports are primarily written for health professionals, patients may experience difficulties understanding jargon and terminology used, leading to anxiety and confusion.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review evaluates the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing, including perception, decision (behavioral intention), action (actual health behavior), and memory (recall of information).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycInfo were searched for relevant qualitative and quantitative articles describing or comparing ways of presenting diagnostic radiology reports to patients. Two reviewers independently screened for relevant articles and extracted data from those included. The quality of articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies, two qualitative and sixteen quantitative, were included. Sixteen studies compared multiple presentation formats, most frequently traditional unmodified reports (n = 15), or reports with anatomic illustrations (n = 8), lay summaries (n = 6) or glossaries (n = 6). Glossaries, illustrations, lay summaries, lay reports or lay conclusions all significantly improved participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication of radiology reports, compared to traditional reports. Furthermore, these formats increased affective perception (e.g., reduced anxiety and worry), although only significant for lay reports and conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Modifying traditional radiology reports with glossaries, illustrations or lay language enhances patient information processing.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Identifying the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing to enhance patient engagement through online access to radiology reports. Findings Lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations increase patients' satisfaction with and understanding of their radiology reports. Clinical relevance To increase patients' satisfaction, perceived usefulness and understanding with radiology reports, the use of lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations is recommended. These modifications decrease patients' unnecessary insecurity, confusion, anxiety and physician consultations after viewing reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"F A M van der Mee, R P G Ottenheijm, E G S Gentry, J M Nobel, F M Zijta, J W L Cals, J Jansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00330-024-11165-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since radiology reports are primarily written for health professionals, patients may experience difficulties understanding jargon and terminology used, leading to anxiety and confusion.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review evaluates the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing, including perception, decision (behavioral intention), action (actual health behavior), and memory (recall of information).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycInfo were searched for relevant qualitative and quantitative articles describing or comparing ways of presenting diagnostic radiology reports to patients. Two reviewers independently screened for relevant articles and extracted data from those included. The quality of articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies, two qualitative and sixteen quantitative, were included. Sixteen studies compared multiple presentation formats, most frequently traditional unmodified reports (n = 15), or reports with anatomic illustrations (n = 8), lay summaries (n = 6) or glossaries (n = 6). Glossaries, illustrations, lay summaries, lay reports or lay conclusions all significantly improved participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication of radiology reports, compared to traditional reports. Furthermore, these formats increased affective perception (e.g., reduced anxiety and worry), although only significant for lay reports and conclusions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Modifying traditional radiology reports with glossaries, illustrations or lay language enhances patient information processing.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Identifying the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing to enhance patient engagement through online access to radiology reports. Findings Lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations increase patients' satisfaction with and understanding of their radiology reports. Clinical relevance To increase patients' satisfaction, perceived usefulness and understanding with radiology reports, the use of lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations is recommended. These modifications decrease patients' unnecessary insecurity, confusion, anxiety and physician consultations after viewing reports.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Radiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11165-w\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-024-11165-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
The impact of different radiology report formats on patient information processing: a systematic review.
Background: Since radiology reports are primarily written for health professionals, patients may experience difficulties understanding jargon and terminology used, leading to anxiety and confusion.
Objectives: This review evaluates the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing, including perception, decision (behavioral intention), action (actual health behavior), and memory (recall of information).
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and PsycInfo were searched for relevant qualitative and quantitative articles describing or comparing ways of presenting diagnostic radiology reports to patients. Two reviewers independently screened for relevant articles and extracted data from those included. The quality of articles was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
Results: Eighteen studies, two qualitative and sixteen quantitative, were included. Sixteen studies compared multiple presentation formats, most frequently traditional unmodified reports (n = 15), or reports with anatomic illustrations (n = 8), lay summaries (n = 6) or glossaries (n = 6). Glossaries, illustrations, lay summaries, lay reports or lay conclusions all significantly improved participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication of radiology reports, compared to traditional reports. Furthermore, these formats increased affective perception (e.g., reduced anxiety and worry), although only significant for lay reports and conclusions.
Conclusion: Modifying traditional radiology reports with glossaries, illustrations or lay language enhances patient information processing.
Key points: Question Identifying the impact of different radiology report formats on outcomes related to patient information processing to enhance patient engagement through online access to radiology reports. Findings Lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations increase patients' satisfaction with and understanding of their radiology reports. Clinical relevance To increase patients' satisfaction, perceived usefulness and understanding with radiology reports, the use of lay language summaries, glossaries with patient-oriented definitions, and anatomic illustrations is recommended. These modifications decrease patients' unnecessary insecurity, confusion, anxiety and physician consultations after viewing reports.
期刊介绍:
European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field.
This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies.
From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.