ArticlePatient preference and adherence2016
Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want?
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Pooled it
- Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- Enhancing patient engagement and understanding: is providing direct access to laboratory results through patient portals adequate?JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Cognitive factors impacting patient understanding of laboratory test information.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
- Consumers' Needs for Laboratory Results Portals: Questionnaire Study.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Online Health Communities: an alternative feasible data registry tool for developing countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Communicating Test Results from a General Health Check: Preferences from a Discrete Choice Experiment Survey.The patient · 2021Article
- Patient Challenges and Needs in Comprehending Laboratory Test Results: Mixed Methods Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Recommendations for designing genetic test reports to be understood by patients and non-specialists.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020Article
- Hereditary cancer gene panel test reports: wide heterogeneity suggests need for standardization.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018Article
- Building a Citizen Pscientist: Advancing Patient-Centered Psoriasis Research by Empowering Patients as Contributors and Analysts.Dermatology and therapy · 2018Article
- Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- Effect of Harm Anchors in Visual Displays of Test Results on Patient Perceptions of Urgency About Near-Normal Values: Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore patient and physician perspectives on current laboratory test reporting practices and to elicit ideas for improvement.
methodsTwo independent studies were conducted. The first solicited members of an online physician community for opinions on current laboratory test reporting practices and possible improvements. The second addressed the same topic, but solicited patient feedback, and included an evaluation of a mock laboratory test report for the rheumatoid factor blood test.
resultsBoth physicians and patients expressed a desire for patient-friendly information on laboratory reports. Physicians expressed a need for education for patients around false-positive and false-negative results within laboratory reports, while patients sought context around the meaning of results, relevance to other tests, and follow-up steps.
conclusionPhysicians and patients see value in enhancing laboratory test reports to improve communication. While reports should include the context that patients value, they should also contain cautionary interpretation emphasized by physicians. Patient consultation on improving laboratory reports may help improve such patient-focused communication and promote greater patient understanding of health information, thereby increasing patient participation in their own health care and improving outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Laboratory reports are typically designed by experts. Including patients in laboratory report design may facilitate communication and improve outcomes through better patient engagement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.