Literature DB >> 28913381

Is It "Fractured" or "Broken"? A Patient Survey Study to Assess Injury Comprehension after Orthopaedic Trauma.

Mohammad Ghorbanhoseini1, Matthew D Riedel1, Tyler Gonzalez1, Poopak Hafezi1, John Y Kwon1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain orthopaedic trauma in the form of fractures commonly ask treating providers whether the bone is "fractured" or "broken". While orthopaedic surgeons consider these terms synonymous, patients appear to comprehend the terms as having different meanings. Given the commonality of this frequently posed question, it may be important for providers to assess patients' level of understanding in order to provide optimal care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patients' comprehension and understanding regarding the use of the terms fractured and broken.
METHODS: A survey was administered as a patient-quality measure to patients, family members and/or other non-patients presenting to an orthopaedic outpatient clinic at an academic teaching hospital.
RESULTS: 200 responders met inclusion criteria. Only 45% of responders understood the terms fractured and broken to be synonymous. Age, gender, nor ethnicity correlated with understanding of terminology. Responders described a "fractured" bone using synonyms of less severe characteristics for 55.7% of their answers and chose more severe characteristics 44.3% of the time, whereas responders chose synonyms to describe a "broken" bone with more severe characteristics as an answer in 62.1% of cases and chose less severe characteristics 37.9% of the time. The difference for each group was statistically significant (P=0.0458 and P ≤0.00001, respectively). There was no correlation between level of education nor having a personal orthopaedic history of a previous fracture with understanding the terms fracture and broken as synonymous. Having an occupation in the medical field (i.e. physician or physical/occupational therapist) significantly improved understanding of terminology.
CONCLUSION: The majority of people, regardless of the age, gender, race, education or history of previous fracture, may not understand that fractured and broken are synonymous terms. Providers need to be cognizant of the terminology they use when describing a patient's injury in order to optimize patient understanding and care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Broken bone; Communication; Fracture; Patient care; Patient understanding; Patient-physician relationship; Treatment plan

Year:  2017        PMID: 28913381      PMCID: PMC5592365     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg        ISSN: 2345-461X


  5 in total

1.  An international comparison of the association among literacy, education, and health across the United States, Canada, Switzerland, Italy, Norway, and Bermuda: implications for health disparities.

Authors:  Takashi Yamashita; Suzanne R Kunkel
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015-03-06

2.  Racial disparities in health literacy and access to care among patients with heart failure.

Authors:  Sarwat I Chaudhry; Jeph Herrin; Christopher Phillips; Javed Butler; Sandip Mukerjhee; Jaime Murillo; Anekwe Onwuanyi; Todd B Seto; John Spertus; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 5.712

3.  Age differences in genetic knowledge, health literacy and causal beliefs for health conditions.

Authors:  S Ashida; M Goodman; C Pandya; L M Koehly; C Lachance; J Stafford; K A Kaphingst
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-09-09       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Patient understanding and satisfaction as predictors of compliance.

Authors:  S A Wartman; L L Morlock; F E Malitz; E A Palm
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  The relationship between health, education, and health literacy: results from the Dutch Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey.

Authors:  Iris van der Heide; Jen Wang; Mariël Droomers; Peter Spreeuwenberg; Jany Rademakers; Ellen Uiters
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2013
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.