Graphics help patients distinguish between urgent and non-urgent deviations in laboratory test results

ABSTRACT Objective: Most electronic health record systems provide laboratory test results to patients in table format. We tested whether presenting such results in visual displays (number lines) could improve understanding. Materials and Methods: We presented 1620 adults recruited from a demographically diverse Internet panel with hypothetical results from several common laboratory tests, first showing near-normal results and then more extreme values. Participants viewed results in either table format (with a “standard range” provided) or one of 3 number line formats: a simple 2-color format, a format with diagnostic categories such as “borderline high” indicated by colored blocks, and a gradient format that used color gradients to smoothly represent increasing risk as values deviated from standard ranges. We measured respondents’ subjective sense of urgency about each test result, their behavioral intentions, and their perceptions of the display format. Results: Visual displays reduced respondents’ perceived urgency and desire to contact health care providers immediately for near-normal test results compared to tables but did not affect their perceptions of extreme values. In regression analyses controlling for respondent health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy, gradient line displays resulted in the greatest sensitivity to changes in test results. Discussion: Unlike tables, which only tell patients whether test results are normal or not, visual displays can increase the meaningfulness of test results by clearly defining possible values and leveraging color cues and evaluative labels. Conclusion: Patient-facing displays of laboratory test results should use visual displays rather than tables to increase people’s sensitivity to variations in their results.

[1]  F. Davidoff,et al.  Patient-Centered Medicine: A Professional Evolution , 1996 .

[2]  P. Ubel,et al.  Measuring Numeracy without a Math Test: Development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  Brian Fisher,et al.  How patients use access to their electronic GP record--a quantitative study. , 2011, Family practice.

[4]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics , 2008, Cancer.

[5]  P. Ubel,et al.  The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. , 2008, Patient education and counseling.

[6]  R A Weinstein,et al.  The American Hospital Association , 1994, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology.

[7]  P. Ubel,et al.  Validation of the Subjective Numeracy Scale: Effects of Low Numeracy on Comprehension of Risk Communications and Utility Elicitations , 2007, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[8]  Edward T. Cokely,et al.  Effective communication of risks to young adults: using message framing and visual aids to increase condom use and STD screening. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[9]  J. Sweeney,et al.  Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. , 2013, Health affairs.

[10]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Bringing meaning to numbers: the impact of evaluative categories on decisions. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[11]  Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher,et al.  The benefits of discussing adjuvant therapies one at a time instead of all at once , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[12]  V. Reyna CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE How People Make Decisions That Involve Risk A Dual-Processes Approach , 2022 .

[13]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  General Evaluability Theory , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[14]  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher,et al.  Can patients use test results effectively if they have direct access? , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  Alla Keselman,et al.  Towards Consumer-Friendly PHRs: Patients' Experience with Reviewing Their Health Records , 2007, AMIA.

[16]  Torbjørn Torsvik,et al.  Presentation of clinical laboratory results: an experimental comparison of four visualization techniques , 2012, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[17]  L. M. Peterson,et al.  Patient-centered informed consent in surgical practice. , 2006, Archives of surgery.

[18]  Vimla L. Patel,et al.  The patient clinical information system (PatCIS): technical solutions for and experience with giving patients access to their electronic medical records , 2002, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[19]  Nicole L. Exe,et al.  Numeracy and Literacy Independently Predict Patients’ Ability to Identify Out-of-Range Test Results , 2014, Journal of medical Internet research.

[20]  Chandler Stolp,et al.  The Visual Display of Quantitative Information , 1983 .

[21]  David T. Bauer,et al.  The design and evaluation of a graphical display for laboratory data , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[22]  P. Slovic,et al.  Numeracy skill and the communication, comprehension, and use of risk-benefit information. , 2007, Health affairs.

[23]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[24]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  “Is 28% Good or Bad?” Evaluability and Preference Reversals in Health Care Decisions , 2004, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[25]  S. Woolf,et al.  A vision for patient-centered health information systems. , 2011, JAMA.

[26]  E. Tufte,et al.  The visual display of quantitative information , 1984, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[27]  Siamak Noorbaloochi,et al.  Validation of Screening Questions for Limited Health Literacy in a Large VA Outpatient Population , 2008, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[28]  P. Ubel,et al.  A Demonstration of ‘‘Less Can Be More’’ in Risk Graphics , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[29]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  What's Time Got to Do with It? Inattention to Duration in Interpretation of Survival Graphs , 2005, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[30]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Clinical Implications of Numeracy: Theory and Practice , 2008, Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine.

[31]  Christopher K. Hsee Less is Better: When Low-Value Options are Valued More Highly than High-Value Options , 1998 .

[32]  Mandeep K. Dhami,et al.  Pictures speak louder than numbers: on communicating medical risks to immigrants with limited non‐native language proficiency , 2011, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[33]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Options: A Review and Theoretical Analysis , 1999 .