Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29433495›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2018

Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.

Paolo Fraccaro, Markel Vigo, Panagiotis Balatsoukas, Sabine N van der Veer, Lamiece Hassan, Richard Williams, Grahame Wood, Smeeta Sinha, Iain Buchan, Niels Peek

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Paolo FraccaroNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. paolo.fraccaro@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-5213-7071
Markel VigoSchool of Computer Science, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Panagiotis BalatsoukasCentre for Health Informatics, City University, London, UK.
Sabine N van der VeerHealth eResearch Centre, Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research, London, UK.
Lamiece HassanHealth eResearch Centre, Farr Institute for Health Informatics Research, London, UK.
Richard WilliamsNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Grahame WoodRenal Clinic, Salford Royal NHS Trust, Salford, UK.
Smeeta SinhaRenal Clinic, Salford Royal NHS Trust, Salford, UK.
Iain BuchanMicrosoft Healthcare, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, UK.
Niels PeekNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBCity, University of London · GBMicrosoft Research (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_13042Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1National Institute for Health Research NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient portals are considered valuable instruments for self-management of long term conditions, however, there are concerns over how patients might interpret and act on the clinical information they access. We hypothesized that visual cues improve patients' abilities to correctly interpret laboratory test results presented through patient portals. We also assessed, by applying eye-tracking methods, the relationship between risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.

methodsWe conducted a controlled study with 20 kidney transplant patients. Participants viewed three different graphical presentations in each of low, medium, and high risk clinical scenarios composed of results for 28 laboratory tests. After viewing each clinical scenario, patients were asked how they would have acted in real life if the results were their own, as a proxy of their risk interpretation. They could choose between: 1) Calling their doctor immediately (high interpreted risk); 2) Trying to arrange an appointment within the next 4 weeks (medium interpreted risk); 3) Waiting for the next appointment in 3 months (low interpreted risk). For each presentation, we assessed accuracy of patients' risk interpretation, and employed eye tracking to assess and compare visual search behaviour.

resultsMisinterpretation of risk was common, with 65% of participants underestimating the need for action across all presentations at least once. Participants found it particularly difficult to interpret medium risk clinical scenarios. Participants who consistently understood when action was needed showed a higher visual search efficiency, suggesting a better strategy to cope with information overload that helped them to focus on the laboratory tests most relevant to their condition.

conclusionsThis study confirms patients' difficulties in interpreting laboratories test results, with many patients underestimating the need for action, even when abnormal values were highlighted or grouped together. Our findings raise patient safety concerns and may limit the potential of patient portals to actively involve patients in their own healthcare.

Indexed as

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient PortalsUser-Computer InterfaceVisual PerceptionAdultEye Movement MeasurementsFemaleHumansKidney TransplantationMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentComputers/utilization [MeSH]Computer utilizationDecision making [MeSH]Decision support systems, clinical [MeSH]Eye trackingLaboratory test resultsPatient access to records [MeSH]Patient portalsPatients access to recordsPersonal health record [MeSH]Personal health recordsUser-computer interface [MeSH]

Identifiers

PMID29433495
PMCPMC5809992
OpenAlexW2783062583

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.