Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39133906›Full record

SynthesisJournal of medical Internet research2024

Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.

Frederieke A M van der Mee, Fleur Schaper, Jesse Jansen, Judith A P Bons, Steven J R Meex, Jochen W L Cals

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Frederieke A M van der Mee *Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0004-4894-119X
Fleur Schaper *Department of Clinical Chemistry, Reinier Medical Diagnostic Center, Delft, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1217-4895
Jesse JansenDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7739-0049
Judith A P BonsCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6805-0520
Steven J R MeexCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-8147-9006
Jochen W L CalsDepartment of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9550-5674

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDirect access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information.

objectiveThis study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory.

methodsThe search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

resultsA total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges.

conclusionsIn this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.

Indexed as

MemoryCommunicationComprehensionDecision MakingHumansPatient PortalsPerceptionclinical laboratory information systemselectronic health recordhealth communicationhealth informaticslaboratory test resultspatient access to recordspatient engagementpatient involvementpatient portal

Identifiers

PMID39133906
PMCPMC11347896

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.