Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34369626›Full record

ArticleThe oncologist2021

Physician Communication and Patient Understanding of Molecular Testing Terminology.

Shannon M Blee, Rachel Pocock Shah, Ana P M Pinheiro, Jeffrey Switchenko, Margie Dixon, Taofeek K Owonikoko, Charles E Hill, Stephen M Szabo, Rebecca D Pentz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The oncologist, 2021. 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Shannon M BleeWinship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9110-8281
Rachel Pocock ShahEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Ana P M PinheiroEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Jeffrey SwitchenkoRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Margie DixonEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Taofeek K OwonikokoEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Charles E HillEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Stephen M SzaboEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Rebecca D PentzEmory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4338-6663

Funding

Winship Cancer Institute Cancer Center Support GrantP30CA138292 · NCI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Suresh S Ramalingam · 2009 to 2026
$47.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA138292
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of molecular testing in oncology is rapidly expanding. The aim of this study was to determine how oncologists describe molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology being used. MATERIALS AND

methodsSixty conversations between oncologists and patients about molecular testing were observed, and the used technical terms were noted by the researcher. Patients were interviewed post-conversation to assess their understanding of the noted technical terms. A patient understanding score was calculated for each participant. Comparisons of the terms were conducted using χ

resultsSixty-one unique technical terms were used by oncologists, to describe seven topics. "Mutation" was a challenging term for patients to understand with 48.8% (21/43 mentions) of participants correctly defining the term. "Genetic testing" and "Gene" were understood a little more than half the time (53.3%; 8/15 and 56.4%; 22/39 respectively). "DNA" was well understood (80%; 12/15). There was no correlation between the terms being defined by the oncologist in the conversation, and the likelihood of the patient providing a correct definition. White participants were significantly more likely to understand both "mutation" and "genetic testing" than non-White participants. Forty-two percent (n = 25) of participants had an understanding score below 50%, and a higher family income was significantly correlated with a higher score.

conclusionOur results show that oncologists use variable terminology to describe molecular testing, which is often not understood. Because oncologists defining the terms did not correlate with understanding, it is imperative to develop new, improved methods to explain molecular testing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of molecular testing is expanding in oncology, yet little is known about how effectively clinicians are communicating information about molecular testing and whether patients understand the terminology used. The results of this study indicate that patients do not understand some of the terminology used by their clinicians and that clinicians tend to use highly variable terminology to describe molecular testing. These results highlight the need to develop and implement effective methods to explain molecular testing terminology to patients to ensure that patients have the tools to make autonomous and informed decisions about their treatment.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysiciansHumansMolecular Diagnostic TechniquesGenome sequencingInformed consentMolecular testingPathogenic variantPhysician/patient communication

Identifiers

PMID34369626
PMCPMC8571766

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.