Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31995131›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2020

Dermatopathologists' Experience With and Perceptions of Patient Online Access to Pathologic Test Result Reports.

Hannah Shucard, Michael W Piepkorn, Lisa M Reisch, Kathleen F Kerr, Andrea C Radick, Pin-Chieh Wang, Stevan R Knezevich, Raymond L Barnhill, David E Elder, Joann G Elmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Hannah ShucardDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Michael W PiepkornDivision of Dermatology, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle.
Lisa M ReischDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Kathleen F KerrDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Andrea C RadickDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle.
Pin-Chieh WangDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Stevan R KnezevichPathology Associates, Clovis, California.
Raymond L BarnhillInstitut Curie, Department of Pathology, Paris Sciences and Lettres Research University, Paris, France.
David E ElderDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Joann G ElmoreDavid Geffen School of Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.

Funding

Translational Bioimaging Core Shared ResourceP30CA015704 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI Marian Esvelt · 1985 to 2026
$296.4M
Transform Dissemination and Implementation Science in CTSA ProgramsUL1TR002319 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI John K. Amory · 2017 to 2026
$100.0M
Reducing Errors in the Diagnosis of Melanoma and Melanocytic LesionsR01CA201376 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G, KERR, KATHLEEN F. · 2016 to 2020
$3.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002319NCI NIH HHS P30 CA015704NCI NIH HHS R01 CA201376
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Many patients presently have access to their pathologic test result reports via online patient portals, yet little is known about pathologists' perspective on this topic. Objective: To examine dermatopathologists' experience and perceptions of patient online access to pathology reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: A survey of 160 dermatopathologists currently practicing in the United States who are board certified and/or fellowship trained in dermatopathology was conducted between July 15, 2018, and September 23, 2019. Those who reported interpreting skin biopsies of melanocytic lesions within the previous year and expected to continue interpreting them for the next 2 years were included. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dermatopathologists' demographic and clinical characteristics, experiences with patient online access to pathologic test result reports, potential behaviors and reactions to patient online access to those reports, and effects on patients who read their pathologic test result reports online. Results: Of the 160 participating dermatopathologists from the 226 eligible for participation (71% response rate), 107 were men (67%); mean (SD) age was 49 (9.7) years (range, 34-77 years). Ninety-one participants (57%) reported that patients have contacted them directly about pathologic test reports they had written. Some participants noted that they would decrease their use of abbreviations and/or specialized terminology (57 [36%]), change the way they describe lesions suspicious for cancer (29 [18%]), and need specialized training in communicating with patients (39 [24%]) if patients were reading their reports. Most respondents perceived that patient understanding would increase (97 [61%]) and the quality of patient-physician communication would increase (98 [61%]) owing to the availability of online reports. Slightly higher proportions perceived increased patient worry (114 [71%]) and confusion (116 [73%]). However, on balance, most participants (114 [71%]) agreed that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatopathologists in this survey study perceived both positive and negative consequences of patient online access to pathologic test result reports written by the respondents. Most participants believe that making pathologic test result reports available to patients online is a good idea; however, they also report concerns about patient worry and confusion increasing as a result. Further research regarding best practices and the effect on both patients and clinicians is warranted.

Indexed as

Patient PortalsAdultAgedAttitude of Health PersonnelBiopsyDermatologistsDermatologyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPathologistsPatient Access to RecordsPhysician-Patient RelationsSkin DiseasesSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31995131
PMCPMC6990839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.