Samuel K Shultz1, Robert Wu2,3, John J Matelski3, Xin Lu4,5, Peter Cram4,2,3. 1. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 520 Clark St., Iowa City, IA, 52240, USA. samuel-shultz@uiowa.edu. 2. Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Mt. Sinai/UHN Hospitals, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, 520 Clark St., Iowa City, IA, 52240, USA. 5. CADRE, Iowa City VA Medical Center, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal). OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable. RESULTS: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients.
IMPORTANCE: Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal). OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable. RESULTS: When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
patient preferences; test results notification
Authors: Tom Delbanco; Jan Walker; Sigall K Bell; Jonathan D Darer; Joann G Elmore; Nadine Farag; Henry J Feldman; Roanne Mejilla; Long Ngo; James D Ralston; Stephen E Ross; Neha Trivedi; Elisabeth Vodicka; Suzanne G Leveille Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Eric G Poon; Allen Kachalia; Ann Louise Puopolo; Tejal K Gandhi; David M Studdert Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Anuj K Dalal; Christopher L Roy; Eric G Poon; Deborah H Williams; Nyryan Nolido; Cathy Yoon; Jonas Budris; Tejal Gandhi; David W Bates; Jeffrey L Schnipper Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: H J Murff; T K Gandhi; A K Karson; E A Mort; E G Poon; S J Wang; D G Fairchild; D W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Stephanie W Edmonds; Fredric D Wolinsky; Alan J Christensen; Xin Lu; Michael P Jones; Douglas W Roblin; Kenneth G Saag; Peter Cram Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-10-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Donna M Baldwin; Javán Quintela; Christine Duclos; Elizabeth W Staton; Wilson D Pace Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2005-03-08 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Peter Cram; Kenneth G Saag; Yiyue Lou; Stephanie W Edmonds; Sylvie F Hall; Douglas W Roblin; Nicole C Wright; Michael P Jones; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: John A Lynch; Richard R Sharp; Sharon A Aufox; Sarah T Bland; Carrie Blout; Deborah J Bowen; Adam H Buchanan; Colin Halverson; Margaret Harr; Scott J Hebbring; Nora Henrikson; Christin Hoell; Ingrid A Holm; Gail Jarvik; Iftikhar J Kullo; David C Kochan; Eric B Larson; Amanda Lazzeri; Kathleen A Leppig; Jill Madden; Maddalena Marasa; Melanie F Myers; Josh Peterson; Cynthia A Prows; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; James Ralston; Hila Milo Rasouly; Aaron Scrol; Maureen E Smith; Amy Sturm; Kelsey Stuttgen; Georgia Wiesner; Marc S Williams; Julia Wynn; Janet L Williams Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2020-05-13