不同放射学报告格式对患者信息处理的影响:系统综述。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING European Radiology Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1007/s00330-024-11165-w
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于放射学报告主要是为医疗专业人员撰写的,患者可能难以理解其中使用的行话和术语,从而导致焦虑和困惑:本综述评估了不同放射学报告格式对患者信息处理结果的影响,包括感知、决策(行为意图)、行动(实际健康行为)和记忆(信息回忆):方法:在 PubMed、Web of Science、EMBASE 和 PsycInfo 上搜索描述或比较向患者展示放射诊断报告方式的相关定性和定量文章。两名审稿人独立筛选相关文章,并从纳入的文章中提取数据。文章质量采用混合方法评估工具进行评估:结果:共纳入 18 项研究,其中 2 项为定性研究,16 项为定量研究。16 项研究比较了多种展示格式,最常见的是传统的未修改报告(15 项),或带有解剖插图(8 项)、非专业人士摘要(6 项)或词汇表(6 项)的报告。与传统报告相比,词汇表、插图、非专业摘要、非专业报告或非专业结论都显著改善了参与者对放射学报告的认知感知和沟通感知。此外,这些格式还提高了情感感知(例如,减少了焦虑和担忧),但仅对非专业报告和结论有显著效果:结论:用词汇表、插图或非专业语言修改传统放射学报告可提高患者的信息处理能力:问题 确定不同放射学报告格式对患者信息处理结果的影响,通过在线获取放射学报告提高患者参与度。研究结果 非专业语言摘要、包含以患者为导向的定义的词汇表和解剖插图可提高患者对放射学报告的满意度和理解度。临床意义 为了提高患者对放射学报告的满意度、感知有用性和理解度,建议使用非专业语言摘要、以患者为导向的定义词汇表和解剖插图。这些改动可减少患者在查看报告后不必要的不安全感、困惑、焦虑和医生咨询。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Correction: Comparison between CT volumetry and extracellular volume fraction using liver dynamic CT for the predictive ability of liver fibrosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Correction: Development and evaluation of two open-source nnU-Net models for automatic segmentation of lung tumors on PET and CT images with and without respiratory motion compensation. Correction: Machine learning detects symptomatic patients with carotid plaques based on 6-type calcium configuration classification on CT angiography. Natural language processing pipeline to extract prostate cancer-related information from clinical notes. ESR Essentials: characterisation and staging of adnexal masses with MRI and CT-practice recommendations by ESUR.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1