Lena Schnitzler1, Sian K Smith2, Heather L Shepherd3, Joanne Shaw3, Skye Dong3, Delesha M Carpenter4, Frances Nguyen5, Haryana M Dhillon6. 1. Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, University of Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands; Psychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Level 4, C25 Lowy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. 2. Psychosocial Research Group, Prince of Wales Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, Level 4, C25 Lowy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. Electronic address: sian.smith@unsw.edu.au. 3. Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group (PoCoG), University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Asheville, USA. 5. Nutrition and Chronic Disease Prevention, Harris County Public Health & Environmental Services, Houston, USA. 6. Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-Based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Radiation oncology consultations involve explanation of complex technical concepts using medical jargon. This study aimed to: analyse types and frequency of medical jargon that radiation therapists (RTs) use during education sessions; identify how patients seek clarification from RTs; and, explore RTs communication strategies. METHODS: Education sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed. Medical jargon was analysed using MaxDictio (a vocabulary analysis programme). A distinction was made between specialised (specialised terms used in RT or cancer) and contextual jargon (common everyday words with a different meaning in RT). Qualitative data were analysed using Framework analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients and 10 RTs participated. Contextual treatment jargon were the most frequently used jargon (32.2%) along with general medical terms (34.6%). Patients appeared uncertain about the number of treatments, side effects, and the risks of radiation. Patients sought clarification by asking RTs to explain or repeat information. RTs replaced jargon with a simpler word, used everyday analogies, and diagrams. CONCLUSION: Use of medical jargon is common in RT education sessions. RTs used different jargon types to varying degrees, but contextual jargon dominated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training RTs how to tailor information to enhance patients' understanding would be beneficial. Future research exploring medical jargon used in other (non-) oncology settings is required.
OBJECTIVE: Radiation oncology consultations involve explanation of complex technical concepts using medical jargon. This study aimed to: analyse types and frequency of medical jargon that radiation therapists (RTs) use during education sessions; identify how patients seek clarification from RTs; and, explore RTs communication strategies. METHODS: Education sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed. Medical jargon was analysed using MaxDictio (a vocabulary analysis programme). A distinction was made between specialised (specialised terms used in RT or cancer) and contextual jargon (common everyday words with a different meaning in RT). Qualitative data were analysed using Framework analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients and 10 RTs participated. Contextual treatment jargon were the most frequently used jargon (32.2%) along with general medical terms (34.6%). Patients appeared uncertain about the number of treatments, side effects, and the risks of radiation. Patients sought clarification by asking RTs to explain or repeat information. RTs replaced jargon with a simpler word, used everyday analogies, and diagrams. CONCLUSION: Use of medical jargon is common in RT education sessions. RTs used different jargon types to varying degrees, but contextual jargon dominated. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training RTs how to tailor information to enhance patients' understanding would be beneficial. Future research exploring medical jargon used in other (non-) oncology settings is required.
Authors: Shannon Blee; Bari Rosenberg; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Rachel Hianik; Mary Catherine Thomson; Margie Dixon; Mehmet Asim Bilen; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Immunomedicine Date: 2021-09-02
Authors: Sarah A Walser; Allison Werner-Lin; Rebecca Mueller; Victoria A Miller; Sawona Biswas; Barbara A Bernhardt Journal: Per Med Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.512
Authors: Kah Poh Loh; Maya Abdallah; Sindhuja Kadambi; Megan Wells; Anita J Kumar; Jason H Mendler; Jane L Liesveld; Marsha Wittink; Kristen O'Dwyer; Michael W Becker; Colin McHugh; Wendy Stock; Navneet S Majhail; Tanya M Wildes; Paul Duberstein; Supriya Gupta Mohile; Heidi D Klepin Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2020-10-11
Authors: Margot Jager; Janine de Zeeuw; Janne Tullius; Roberta Papa; Cinzia Giammarchi; Amanda Whittal; Andrea F de Winter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Alicia Chung; Tiffany Donley; Ron D Hays; Rebecca Robbins; Azizi Seixas; Girardin Jean-Louis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-16 Impact factor: 4.614