Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4NEf3C19723; Fri, 23 May 2003 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 10:41:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <NEBBLFPBOLFGGILPMAANOEDGCPAA.lspotter@att.net> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Linda S. Potter" <lspotter@att.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3989] RE: New research on use of medical v lay language X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; Status: O Content-Length: 5061 Lines: 113 In fieldtesting the patient package inserts for various contraceptives, we've been finding that most of the women interviewed preferred having both terms. They also tended to recognize the medical names for any diseases they themselves had that might contraindicate their using a particular method. In general the women preferred seeing the lay term first, then the medical term. Some did not recognize parentheses or that the term in parentheses meant the same as the lay term so "high blood pressure (hypertension)" did not work as well as "high blood pressure (or hypertension)" Still using the parentheses with the "or" seemed to make it clearer to the reader that the medical term referred to the lay term and was not a separate condition. Data collection: We have always used 2-3 focus groups with providers, then patients, and used their responses to revise the insert, then used "teach back" in one-on-one interviews (n=75-100). This fieldtesting has been with women patients between the ages of 18-44 in publically-funded family planning clinics, so our somewhat tentative conclusions cannot necessarily be generalized to other categories of patients or conditions. They may be a good starting place though. ******************************** Linda S. Potter, DrPH Family Health Research 56 N. Mill Road Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 tel: 609-716-6365 fax: 609-716-4972 email: lspotter@att.net ******************************** -----Original Message----- From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of Baur, Cynthia Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:47 AM To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3987] New research on use of medical v lay language I am very interested in the list's reaction to a new research study published in the journal "Family Practice." I have pasted in the URL and abstract below (tip: for wrap around URLs', you have to copy and paste each line separately into your browser). The full text is free online. The sound bite is that patients may prefer medical to lay language because the medical language provides a range of "benefits," of which understanding is only one consideration. Although the authors don't say this, maybe patients want both medical and lay language - one for legitimacy and the other for understanding. These findings would seem to have a direct relation to our work on health literacy and provider-patient communication. Comments on the findings? Cynthia Baur HHS http://fampra.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/3/248?ijkey=4f2e459105 82d511afa316074e04cd0bd4be321a Family Practice Vol. 20, No. 3, 248-253 What's in a name? An experimental study of patients' views of the impact and function of a diagnosis Jane Ogden, Ruben Branson, Annie Bryett, Amaryllis Campbell, Alberto Febles, Ian Ferguson, Hilary Lavender, Jacques Mizan, Robin Simpson and Michael Tayler Department of General Practice, Guys Kings and St Thomas's School of Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK. Correspondence to: Correspondence to Jane Ogden, Department of General Practice, GKT, 5 Lambeth Walk, London SE11 6SP, UK; E-mail: Jane.Ogden@kcl.ac.uk Objective. The aim of the present study was to examine patients' views about the relative impact and function of lay and medical diagnoses for stomach and throat problems. Methods. A questionnaire survey was carried out among 900 consecutive patients attending nine general practices across England. A total of 740 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 82.2%). Each participant rated a series of statements describing the impact upon the patient and the function for the doctor following both a stomach and a throat problem case scenario involving either a lay (stomach upset/sore throat) or medical (gastroenteritis/tonsillitis) label. Results. The results showed consistent differences between the lay and medical labels for both stomach and throat problems in terms of their impact upon the patient and their function for the doctor. In particular, the medical labels were rated as beneficial for the patient in terms of validating the sick role and improving their confidence in the doctor. In contrast, the lay labels resulted in a greater sense of ownership of the problem which could be associated with unwanted responsibility and blame. In addition, the medical labels were seen to provide the doctor with a greater sense of professionalism, as giving them a clearer role in the consultation and to imply less blame on the part of the patient. 'Stomach upset' was also seen as a more pragmatic label than 'gastroenteritis'. Conclusion. Although much current prescriptive literature in general practice advocates the use of lay language in the consultation as a means to promote better doctor-patient partnerships, the issue of diagnosis is more complex than this. Patients attribute greater benefits to the use of medical labels for themselves and state that such medical labels are of greater benefit to the doctor. Keywords. Diagnosis, doctor, patient communication, general practice, language.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST