BACKGROUND: Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically. METHODS: We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal findings. In a second experiment, participants viewed table and bar graph formats (within subjects) that presented test results with normal, borderline, and abnormal findings. RESULTS: Participants required less viewing time when using bar graphs rather than tables. This overall difference was due to superior performance of bar graphs in vignettes with many test results. Bar graphs and tables performed equally well with regard to recall accuracy and understanding. In terms of ease of use, participants did not prefer bar graphs to tables when they viewed only one format. When participants viewed both formats, those with experience with bar graphs preferred bar graphs, and those with experience with tables found bar graphs equally easy to use. Preference for bar graphs was strongest when viewing tests with borderline results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to horizontal bar graphs, tables required more time and experience to achieve the same results, suggesting that tables can be a more burdensome format to use. The current practice of presenting medical test results in a tabular format merits reconsideration.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Electronic personal health records offer a promising way to communicate medical test results to patients. We compared the usability of tables and horizontal bar graphs for presenting medical test results electronically. METHODS: We conducted experiments with a convenience sample of 106 community-dwelling adults. In the first experiment, participants viewed either table or bar graph formats (between subjects) that presented medical test results with normal and abnormal findings. In a second experiment, participants viewed table and bar graph formats (within subjects) that presented test results with normal, borderline, and abnormal findings. RESULTS:Participants required less viewing time when using bar graphs rather than tables. This overall difference was due to superior performance of bar graphs in vignettes with many test results. Bar graphs and tables performed equally well with regard to recall accuracy and understanding. In terms of ease of use, participants did not prefer bar graphs to tables when they viewed only one format. When participants viewed both formats, those with experience with bar graphs preferred bar graphs, and those with experience with tables found bar graphs equally easy to use. Preference for bar graphs was strongest when viewing tests with borderline results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to horizontal bar graphs, tables required more time and experience to achieve the same results, suggesting that tables can be a more burdensome format to use. The current practice of presenting medical test results in a tabular format merits reconsideration.
Authors: Bradford W Hesse; David E Nelson; Gary L Kreps; Robert T Croyle; Neeraj K Arora; Barbara K Rimer; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005 Dec 12-26
Authors: Noel T Brewer; Alice R Richman; Jessica T DeFrank; Valerie F Reyna; Lisa A Carey Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-10-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: Hypertension Date: 2003-12-01 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Sarah T Hawley; Brian Zikmund-Fisher; Peter Ubel; Aleksandra Jancovic; Todd Lucas; Angela Fagerlin Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-08-27
Authors: Ellen Burke Beckjord; Lila J Finney Rutten; Linda Squiers; Neeraj K Arora; Lindsey Volckmann; Richard P Moser; Bradford W Hesse Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2007-07-12 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Meghan Reading Turchioe; Lisa V Grossman; Annie C Myers; Dawon Baik; Parag Goyal; Ruth M Masterson Creber Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Kathryn I Pollak; Catherine Rehder; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer H Crow; Michael Datto Journal: Genome Med Date: 2014-07-31 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Seth M Noar; Marissa G Hall; Diane B Francis; Kurt M Ribisl; Jessica K Pepper; Noel T Brewer Journal: Tob Control Date: 2015-05-06 Impact factor: 7.552