影响外行人对医学术语定义理解的个别因素

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Policy and Technology Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100932
David A. Levy , Harmon S. Jordan , John P. Lalor , Jenni Kim Smirnova , Wen Hu , Weisong Liu , Hong Yu
{"title":"影响外行人对医学术语定义理解的个别因素","authors":"David A. Levy ,&nbsp;Harmon S. Jordan ,&nbsp;John P. Lalor ,&nbsp;Jenni Kim Smirnova ,&nbsp;Wen Hu ,&nbsp;Weisong Liu ,&nbsp;Hong Yu","doi":"10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Patients have difficulty understanding medical jargon in electronic health record (EHR) notes. Lay definitions can improve patient comprehension, which is the goal of the NoteAid project. We assess whether the NoteAid definitions are understandable to laypeople and whether understandability differs with respect to layperson characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Definitions for jargon terms were written for laypersons with a 4th-to-7th-grade reading level. 300 definitions were randomly sampled from a corpus of approximately 30,000 definitions. 280 laypeople (crowdsource workers) were recruited; each layperson rated the understandability of 20 definitions. Understandability was rated on a 5-point scale. Using a generalized estimating equation model (GEE) we analyzed the relationship between understandability and age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, native language, health literacy, and definition writer.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.5–85.7 %) of the laypeople reported that the definitions were understandable. Males were less likely to report understanding the definitions than females (OR: 0.73, 95 % CI: 0.63–0.84). Asians, Hispanics, and those who marked their race/ethnicity as “other” were more likely to report understanding the definitions than whites (Asians: OR: 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.17–1.73; Hispanics: OR: 1.86, 95 % CI: 1.33–2.59; Other: OR: 2.48, 95 % CI: 1.65–3.74). Laypeople whose native language was not English were less likely to report understanding the definitions (OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.36–0.74). Laypeople with lower health literacy were less likely to report understanding definitions (health literacy score 3: OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.43–0.62; health literacy score 4: OR: 0.40, 95 % CI: 0.29–0.55).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Understandability of definitions among laypeople was high. There were statistically significant race/ethnic differences in self-reported understandability, even after controlling for multiple demographics.</div></div><div><h3>Public interest summary</h3><div>We conducted a study to ensure that definitions written for the NoteAid EHR jargon identification tool are understandable. We recruited a diverse group of crowdsource workers and found that overall, the definitions were understandable, but understanding levels varied based on several demographic characteristics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48672,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy and Technology","volume":"13 6","pages":"Article 100932"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Individual factors that affect laypeople's understanding of definitions of medical jargon\",\"authors\":\"David A. Levy ,&nbsp;Harmon S. Jordan ,&nbsp;John P. Lalor ,&nbsp;Jenni Kim Smirnova ,&nbsp;Wen Hu ,&nbsp;Weisong Liu ,&nbsp;Hong Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Patients have difficulty understanding medical jargon in electronic health record (EHR) notes. Lay definitions can improve patient comprehension, which is the goal of the NoteAid project. We assess whether the NoteAid definitions are understandable to laypeople and whether understandability differs with respect to layperson characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Definitions for jargon terms were written for laypersons with a 4th-to-7th-grade reading level. 300 definitions were randomly sampled from a corpus of approximately 30,000 definitions. 280 laypeople (crowdsource workers) were recruited; each layperson rated the understandability of 20 definitions. Understandability was rated on a 5-point scale. Using a generalized estimating equation model (GEE) we analyzed the relationship between understandability and age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, native language, health literacy, and definition writer.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Overall, 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.5–85.7 %) of the laypeople reported that the definitions were understandable. Males were less likely to report understanding the definitions than females (OR: 0.73, 95 % CI: 0.63–0.84). Asians, Hispanics, and those who marked their race/ethnicity as “other” were more likely to report understanding the definitions than whites (Asians: OR: 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.17–1.73; Hispanics: OR: 1.86, 95 % CI: 1.33–2.59; Other: OR: 2.48, 95 % CI: 1.65–3.74). Laypeople whose native language was not English were less likely to report understanding the definitions (OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.36–0.74). Laypeople with lower health literacy were less likely to report understanding definitions (health literacy score 3: OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.43–0.62; health literacy score 4: OR: 0.40, 95 % CI: 0.29–0.55).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Understandability of definitions among laypeople was high. There were statistically significant race/ethnic differences in self-reported understandability, even after controlling for multiple demographics.</div></div><div><h3>Public interest summary</h3><div>We conducted a study to ensure that definitions written for the NoteAid EHR jargon identification tool are understandable. We recruited a diverse group of crowdsource workers and found that overall, the definitions were understandable, but understanding levels varied based on several demographic characteristics.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48672,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"Article 100932\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883724000959\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211883724000959","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的患者在电子病历(EHR)笔记中存在理解医学术语的困难。层定义可以提高患者的理解能力,这是NoteAid项目的目标。我们评估NoteAid定义外行人是否可以理解,以及外行人的特征是否不同。方法为阅读水平为4 -7年级的外行编写术语定义。从大约30,000个定义的语料库中随机抽取300个定义。招募280名外行(众包工作者);每个外行对20个定义的可理解性进行评分。可理解性评分为5分。我们使用广义估计方程模型(GEE)分析了可理解性与年龄、性别、种族/民族、教育水平、母语、健康素养和定义作者之间的关系。结果总体而言,81.1% (95% CI: 76.5 ~ 85.7%)的外行人表示可以理解这些定义。男性报告理解定义的可能性低于女性(OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84)。亚洲人、西班牙人以及那些将自己的种族/民族标记为“其他”的人比白人更有可能理解这些定义(亚洲人:OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17-1.73;西班牙裔:OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.33-2.59;其他:OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.65-3.74)。母语不是英语的外行人不太可能报告理解定义(OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.74)。健康素养较低的外行人不太可能报告理解定义(健康素养评分3:OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.62;健康素养评分4:OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29-0.55)。结论外行人对定义的理解程度较高。即使在控制了多种人口统计数据之后,自我报告的可理解性在统计上也存在显著的种族/民族差异。我们进行了一项研究,以确保为NoteAid电子病历术语识别工具编写的定义是可理解的。我们招募了一群不同的众包工作者,发现总的来说,这些定义是可以理解的,但理解程度因几个人口特征而异。
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
Individual factors that affect laypeople's understanding of definitions of medical jargon

Objective

Patients have difficulty understanding medical jargon in electronic health record (EHR) notes. Lay definitions can improve patient comprehension, which is the goal of the NoteAid project. We assess whether the NoteAid definitions are understandable to laypeople and whether understandability differs with respect to layperson characteristics.

Methods

Definitions for jargon terms were written for laypersons with a 4th-to-7th-grade reading level. 300 definitions were randomly sampled from a corpus of approximately 30,000 definitions. 280 laypeople (crowdsource workers) were recruited; each layperson rated the understandability of 20 definitions. Understandability was rated on a 5-point scale. Using a generalized estimating equation model (GEE) we analyzed the relationship between understandability and age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, native language, health literacy, and definition writer.

Results

Overall, 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.5–85.7 %) of the laypeople reported that the definitions were understandable. Males were less likely to report understanding the definitions than females (OR: 0.73, 95 % CI: 0.63–0.84). Asians, Hispanics, and those who marked their race/ethnicity as “other” were more likely to report understanding the definitions than whites (Asians: OR: 1.43, 95 % CI: 1.17–1.73; Hispanics: OR: 1.86, 95 % CI: 1.33–2.59; Other: OR: 2.48, 95 % CI: 1.65–3.74). Laypeople whose native language was not English were less likely to report understanding the definitions (OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.36–0.74). Laypeople with lower health literacy were less likely to report understanding definitions (health literacy score 3: OR: 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.43–0.62; health literacy score 4: OR: 0.40, 95 % CI: 0.29–0.55).

Conclusion

Understandability of definitions among laypeople was high. There were statistically significant race/ethnic differences in self-reported understandability, even after controlling for multiple demographics.

Public interest summary

We conducted a study to ensure that definitions written for the NoteAid EHR jargon identification tool are understandable. We recruited a diverse group of crowdsource workers and found that overall, the definitions were understandable, but understanding levels varied based on several demographic characteristics.
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
Health Policy and Technology
Health Policy and Technology Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
3.30%
发文量
78
审稿时长
88 days
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Technology (HPT), is the official journal of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine (FPM), a cross-disciplinary journal, which focuses on past, present and future health policy and the role of technology in clinical and non-clinical national and international health environments. HPT provides a further excellent way for the FPM to continue to make important national and international contributions to development of policy and practice within medicine and related disciplines. The aim of HPT is to publish relevant, timely and accessible articles and commentaries to support policy-makers, health professionals, health technology providers, patient groups and academia interested in health policy and technology. Topics covered by HPT will include: - Health technology, including drug discovery, diagnostics, medicines, devices, therapeutic delivery and eHealth systems - Cross-national comparisons on health policy using evidence-based approaches - National studies on health policy to determine the outcomes of technology-driven initiatives - Cross-border eHealth including health tourism - The digital divide in mobility, access and affordability of healthcare - Health technology assessment (HTA) methods and tools for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical and non-clinical health technologies - Health and eHealth indicators and benchmarks (measure/metrics) for understanding the adoption and diffusion of health technologies - Health and eHealth models and frameworks to support policy-makers and other stakeholders in decision-making - Stakeholder engagement with health technologies (clinical and patient/citizen buy-in) - Regulation and health economics
期刊最新文献
Challenges of shared decision-making in virtual care: Whom should we care for, and how? Individual factors that affect laypeople's understanding of definitions of medical jargon An insight into the implementation, utilization, and evaluation of telemedicine e-consultation services in Egypt Multiple criteria qualitative value-based pricing framework “MARIE” for new drugs Assessing contributing and mediating factors of telemedicine on healthcare provider burnout
×
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