Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25944020›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2015

Patient Preferences for Test Result Notification.

Samuel K Shultz, Robert Wu, John J Matelski, Xin Lu, Peter Cram

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Can patients contribute to enhancing the safety and effectiveness of test-result follow-up? Qualitative outcomes from a health consumer workshop.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Samuel K ShultzCarver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 520 Clark St., Iowa City, IA, 52240, USA. samuel-shultz@uiowa.edu.
Robert WuFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
John J MatelskiDivision of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Mt. Sinai/UHN Hospitals, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Xin LuCarver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 520 Clark St., Iowa City, IA, 52240, USA.
Peter CramCarver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 520 Clark St., Iowa City, IA, 52240, USA.
Sinai Health System · CAIowa City VA Medical Center · USUniversity of Iowa · USUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

A Patient Activation Intervention to Enhance Bone HealthR01AG033035 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI WOLINSKY, FREDRIC D · 2010 to 2014
$7.0M
Building Musculoskeletal Outcomes Research at the University of IowaK24AR062133 · NIAMS · UNIVERSITY OF IOWA · PI CRAM, PETER M · 2012 to 2016
$594k
NIAMS NIH HHS AR062133NIAMS NIH HHS K24 AR062133NIA NIH HHS R01 AG033035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importancePatients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal).

objectiveThis study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsWe surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability.

main outcome measuresThe main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable.

resultsWhen test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29).

conclusionsPreferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients.

Indexed as

Truth DisclosureAbsorptiometry, PhotonAcademic Medical CentersAdultAgedBiopsyCommunicationDiagnostic Tests, RoutineElectronic MailFemaleHerpes GenitalisHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsOffice Visitspatient preferencestest results notification

Identifiers

PMID25944020
PMCPMC4617924
OpenAlexW228100997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.