Proposed Questions to Assess the Extent of Knowledge in Understanding the Radiology Report Language
Abstract
:1. Key Points
- The level of radiology literacy in patients is important.
- Patient awareness of radiology contributes to an increase in treatment efficiency.
- A tool that measures radiology literacy in patients is needed.
2. Introduction
3. Methods
3.1. Tool Devolopment
3.2. Study Design and Data Collection
3.3. Study Design and Analysis
4. Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
MRI | Magnetic Resonance Imaging |
IRB | Institutional Review Board |
RLT | Radiology Literacy Tool |
ROC | Receiver Operating Characteristics |
RCQ | Reports Comprehension Quiz |
CIRSE | Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe |
SIR | Society of Interventional Radiology |
References
- Lee, I.C.; Langlotz, C.P.; Elmore, J.G. Implications of direct patient online access to radiology reports through patient web portals. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2016, 13, 1608–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walker, J.; Darer, J.D.; Elmore, J.G.; Delbanco, T. The road toward fully transparent medical records. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014, 370, 6–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woods, S.S.; Schwartz, E.; Tuepker, A.; Press, N.A.; Nazi, K.M.; Turvey, C.; Nichol, W.P. Patient experiences with full electronic access to health records and clinical notes through the My HealtheVet Personal Health Record Pilot: Qualitative study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2013, 15, e2356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Emont, S. Measuring the Impact of Patient Portals: What the Literature Tells Us. California HealthCare Foundation. Available online: http://www.chcf.org/publications/2011/05/measuring-impact-patient-portals (accessed on 1 September 2022).
- Alarifi, M.; Patrick, T.; Jabour, A.; Wu, M.; Luo, J. Full radiology report through patient web portal: A literature review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gu, Y.; Orr, M.; Warren, J. Health literacy and patient portals. J. Prim. Health Care 2015, 7, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, R.W.; Wald, J.S.; Schnipper, J.L.; Gandhi, T.K.; Poon, E.G.; Orav, E.J.; Williams, D.H.; Volk, L.A.; Middleton, B. Practice-linked online personal health records for type 2 diabetes mellitus: A randomized controlled trial. Arch. Intern. Med. 2008, 168, 1776–1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, E.S.; Moore, A.L.; Earnest, A.M.; Wittevrongel, L.; Lin, C.-T.; Houston, T.; Winkelmann, W. Providing a web-based online medical record with electronic communication capabilities to patients with congestive heart failure: Randomized trial. J. Med. Internet Res. 2004, 6, e64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ammenwerth, E.; Schnell-Inderst, P.; Hoerbst, A. The impact of electronic patient portals on patient care: A systematic review of controlled trials. J. Med. Internet Res. 2012, 14, e2238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, A.J.; Easterling, D.; Williams, L.S.; Glover, S.; Frankel, R.M. Insight from patients for radiologists: Improving our reporting systems. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2009, 6, 786–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansberry, D.R.; Kraus, C.; Agarwal, N.; Baker, S.R.; Gonzales, S.F. Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: A comparative analysis of online patient education resources. Cardiovasc. Interv. Radiol. 2014, 37, 1034–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kickbusch, I.S. Health literacy: Addressing the health and education divide. Health Promot. Int. 2001, 16, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Seymour, J. The impact of public health awareness campaigns on the awareness and quality of palliative care. J. Palliat. Med. 2018, 21 (Suppl. S1), S-30–S-36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sanne, S.; Muntner, P.; Kawasaki, L.; Hyre, A.; DeSalvo, K.B. Hypertension knowledge among patients from an urban clinic. Ethn. Dis. 2008, 18, 42. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Al-Abdulrazzaq, D.; Al-Haddad, M.; AbdulRasoul, M.; Al-Basari, I.; Al-Taiar, A. Arabic translation and validation of the Newest Vital Sign health literacy tool: A pilot project to test health literacy of caregivers of children with type 1 diabetes in Kuwait. ESPE Abstr. 2014, 82, P3-D2-719. Available online: http://abstracts.eurospe.org/hrp/0082/hrp0082p3-d2-719 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
- Nath, C.R.; Sylvester, S.T.; Yasek, V.; Gunel, E. Development and validation of a literacy assessment tool for persons with diabetes. Diabetes Educ. 2001, 27, 857–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Ning, N.; Hao, Y.; Sun, H.; Gao, L.; Jiao, M.; Wu, Q.; Quan, H. Health literacy in rural areas of China: Hypertension knowledge survey. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2013, 10, 1125–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armstrong, M.J.; Rueda, J.-D.; Gronseth, G.S.; Mullins, C.D. Framework for enhancing clinical practice guidelines through continuous patient engagement. Health Expect. 2017, 20, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmerli, L.; Jacky, M.; Lünenburger, L.; Riener, R.; Bolliger, M. Increasing patient engagement during virtual reality-based motor rehabilitation. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2013, 94, 1737–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laurance, J.; Henderson, S.; Howitt, P.J.; Matar, M.; Al Kuwari, H.; Edgman-Levitan, S.; Darzi, A. Patient engagement: Four case studies that highlight the potential for improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Health Aff. 2014, 33, 1627–1634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCormack, L.; Thomas, V.; Lewis, M.A.; Rudd, R. Improving low health literacy and patient engagement: A social ecological approach. Patient Educ. Couns. 2017, 100, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vitzthum von Eckstaedt, H.; Kitts, A.B.; Swanson, C.; Hanley, M.; Krishnaraj, A. Patient-centered radiology reporting for lung cancer screening. J. Thorac. Imaging 2020, 35, 85–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Short, R.G.; Middleton, D.; Befera, N.T.; Gondalia, R.; Tailor, T.D. Patient-centered radiology reporting: Using online crowdsourcing to assess the effectiveness of a web-based interactive radiology report. J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2017, 14, 1489–1497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gefen, R.; Bruno, M.A.; Abujudeh, H.H. Online portals: Gateway to patient-centered radiology. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2017, 209, 987–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Iarossi, G. The Power of Survey Design: A User’s Guide for Managing Surveys, Interpreting Results, and Influencing Respondents; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Alarifi, M.; Patrick, T.; Jabour, A.; Wu, M.; Luo, J. Understanding patient needs and gaps in radiology reports through online discussion forum analysis. Insights Imaging 2021, 12, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lawshe, C.H. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers. Psychol. 1975, 28, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taherdoost, H. Validity and Reliability of the Research Instrument; How to Test the Validation of a Questionnaire/Survey in a Research. Int. J. Acad. Res. Manag. 2016, 5, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alarifi, M.; Patrick, T.; Jabour, A.; Wu, M.; Luo, J. Designing a Consumer-Friendly Radiology Report using a Patient-Centered Approach. J. Digit. Imaging 2021, 34, 705–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McHugh, L.M. The chi-square test of independence. Biochem. Med. 2013, 23, 143–149. [Google Scholar]
- Stewart, D.W.; Adams, C.E.; Cano, M.A.; Correa-Fernández, V.; Li, Y.; Waters, A.J.; Wetter, D.W.; Vidrine, J.I. Associations between health literacy and established predictors of smoking cessation. Am. J. Public Health 2013, 103, e43–e49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stewart, D.W.; Cano, M.Á.; Correa-Fernández, V.; Spears, C.A.; Li, Y.; Waters, A.J.; Wetter, D.W.; Vidrine, J.I. Lower health literacy predicts smoking relapse among racially/ethnically diverse smokers with low socioeconomic status. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
NO | Question | Control Group | Intervention Group | p Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | The radiological modality that uses a magnetic field to create images of the inside of your body is (CT, MRI, NM, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.358, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.249, p < 0.001) | 0.553 |
2 | The radiological modality that uses X-rays to create images of the inside of your body is (CT, MRI, NM, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.393, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.359, p < 0.001) | 0.936 |
3 | The radiological modality that uses small amounts of radioactive material to create images of the inside of your body is (CT, MRI, NM, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.312, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.335, p < 0.001) | 0.091 |
4 | All radiology modalities use radiation in the scans (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.179, p 0.001) | (Spearman 0.212, p < 0.001) | 0.513 |
5 | CT uses radiation, which can cause cancer (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.070, p 0.223) | (Spearman 0.015, p 0.838) | 0.253 |
6 | There is no limit to do many X-ray scans in per year (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.286, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.321, p < 0.001) | 0.872 |
7 | The body can filter all the radiation from the body at the end of the imaging scan day (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.114, p 0.042) | (Spearman 0.249, p < 0.001) | 0.069 |
8 | This is a kidney image (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.250, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.261, p < 0.001) | 0.441 |
9 | The case in the above image is (normal case, not normal case, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.109, p 0.062) | (Spearman 0.015, p 0.835) | 0.298 |
10 | It’s normal that radiology images appear in white and gray colors (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.213, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.200, p 0.001) | 1.00 |
11 | All the imaging tests have the same preparation instructions (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.251, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.343, p < 0.001) | 0.104 |
12 | The radiology scan that requires no metal on the body is (Ultrasound, MRI, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.276, p < 0.001) | (Spearman 0.183, p 0.002) | 0.681 |
13 | Did you know that radiology images can be provided in three views as in the above image? (yes, no, don’t know) | (Spearman 0.063, p 0.262) | (Spearman 0.018, p 0.796) | 0.063 |
Characteristics | Control Group | Intervention Group | p Value (Pearson Chi-Square) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 0.723 | ||||
| 39.4% | 126 | 42.6% | 256 | |
| 45.9% | 147 | 43.2% | 128 | |
| 14.7% | 47 | 14.2% | 42 | |
Gender | 0.014 | ||||
| 63.4% | 203 | 53.2% | 157 | |
| 36.6% | 117 | 46.8% | 138 | |
Level of education | 0.603 | ||||
| 8.8% | 28 | 7.8% | 23 | |
| 27.5% | 88 | 31.1% | 180 | |
| 63.7% | 204 | 61.1% | 385 | |
English is the first language | 0.319 | ||||
| 91.3% | 292 | 88.9% | 263 | |
| 8.8% | 28 | 9.9% | 33 | |
Income | 0.733 | ||||
| 9.1% | 29 | 10.8% | 32 | |
| 12.5% | 40 | 14.9% | 44 | |
| 24.7% | 79 | 19.9% | 59 | |
| 22.2% | 71 | 22% | 65 | |
| 18.8% | 60 | 18.6% | 55 | |
| 12.8% | 41 | 13.9% | 41 | |
Chronic condition | 0.946 | ||||
| 36.6% | 117 | 36.8% | 109 | |
| 63.45% | 203 | 63.2% | 187 | |
Smoking | 0.832 | ||||
| 39.7% | 127 | 38.9% | 115 | |
| 60.3% | 193 | 61.1% | 181 |
No | Question | Choices | Score |
---|---|---|---|
1. | According to the report (Notes) the discs in the spine are | a. Fine b. Severely damaged c. Showing signs of narrowing and irregulates d. I do not know | 1 |
2. | According to the report (image and notes), can you determine the location of the issues? | a. At L3 L4 b. At L4 L5 and L5 S1 c. At L3 L4, L4 L5, and L5 S1 d. I do not know | 1 |
3. | According to the report (Image), can you determine the location of the L5 S1 in the following image | a. A b. B c. C d. I do not know | 1 |
4. | According to the report (notes), the terminology word “Stenosis” means: | a. The abnormal narrowing of a passage in the body b. A disease of a joint c. Fever in the body d. I do not know | 1 |
5. | According to the report (notes), the terminology word “Hypertrophy” means | a. Inflammatory condition of the liver b. Bone infection c. The enlargement of the cells d. I do not know | 1 |
6. | Total score | 5 |
Demographic Characteristics | Average Score | p-Value |
---|---|---|
Level of education | <0.001 | |
| 44.31 | |
| 46.28 | |
| 57.64 | |
Income | <0.001 | |
| 51.97 | |
| 48.45 | |
| 47.46 | |
| 52.20 | |
| 59.82 | |
| 61.10 | |
Smoking | <0.001 | |
| 46.90 | |
| 57.30 | |
Chronic diseases | 0.013 | |
| 50 | |
| 55.08 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Alarifi, M.; Jabour, A.M.; Wu, M.; Aldosary, A.; Almanaa, M.; Luo, J. Proposed Questions to Assess the Extent of Knowledge in Understanding the Radiology Report Language. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811808
Alarifi M, Jabour AM, Wu M, Aldosary A, Almanaa M, Luo J. Proposed Questions to Assess the Extent of Knowledge in Understanding the Radiology Report Language. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(18):11808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811808
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlarifi, Mohammad, Abdulrahman M. Jabour, Min Wu, Abdullah Aldosary, Mansour Almanaa, and Jake Luo. 2022. "Proposed Questions to Assess the Extent of Knowledge in Understanding the Radiology Report Language" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 18: 11808. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191811808