Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27724936›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: a qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges.

Caitlin E Rancher, Jody M Shoemaker, Linda E Petree, Mark Holdsworth, John P Phillips, Deborah L Helitzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Caitlin E RancherThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
Jody M ShoemakerThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
Linda E PetreeThe Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
Mark HoldsworthCollege of Pharmacy, The University of New Mexico Health Science Center, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
John P PhillipsDepartment of Neurology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87106, USA.
Deborah L HelitzerCollege of Population Health, MSC 09-5070 Health Sciences Center, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA. helitzer@salud.unm.edu.

Funding

University of New Mexico Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000041 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI LARSON, RICHARD S · 2012 to 2014
$9.8M
Optimization of incidental findings disclosure to research subjectsR21NS077050 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI HOLDSWORTH, MARK T, PHILLIPS, JOHN P · 2012 to 2013
$443k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000041NINDS NIH HHS R21 NS077050
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReturning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF.

methodsWe surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined.

resultsAlthough participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings.

conclusionsThe language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

Indexed as

Access to InformationDisclosureHealth LiteracyIncidental FindingsNeuroimagingResearchResearch SubjectsAdultComprehensionFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMalePatient Acceptance of Health CareQualitative ResearchRetrospective StudiesHealth literacyIncidental findingsNeuroimaging

Identifiers

PMID27724936
PMCPMC5057374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.