PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Direct access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients\' processing of the information.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients\' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory.
METHODS: The search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants\' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants\' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants\' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges.
CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants\' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants\' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients\' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients\' information processing.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients\' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory.
METHODS: The search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.
RESULTS: A total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants\' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants\' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants\' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges.
CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants\' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants\' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients\' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients\' information processing.
摘要：
背景：患者直接访问其基于网络的患者门户，包括实验室测试结果，变得越来越普遍。对于患者来说，数字实验室结果可能具有挑战性，这可能会导致焦虑，混乱,和不必要的医生咨询。实验室结果可以以不同的格式呈现，但是关于这些演示格式如何影响患者对信息的处理的证据有限。
目的：本研究旨在综合提供数字实验室检查结果的有效格式的证据，重点关注与患者信息处理相关的结果，包括情感感知，感知的幅度，认知知觉，沟通的感知，decision,行动,和记忆。
方法：搜索在3个数据库中进行（PubMed，WebofScience,和Embase)从成立到2023年5月31日。我们包括定量的，定性，以及描述或比较向患者提供诊断实验室测试结果的格式的混合方法文章。两名审阅者独立地提取并综合了所使用的文章和演示格式的特征。纳入文章的质量由2名独立审稿人使用混合方法评估工具进行评估。
结果：共纳入18项研究，在研究设计和使用的主要结局方面存在异质性。文章的质量从差到优不等。大多数研究（n=16，89％）使用模拟测试结果。最常用的表示格式是具有参考范围的数值（n=12），带彩色块的水平线条（n=12），或具有数值的水平线条的组合（n=8）。所有研究都检查了感知作为一种结果，虽然在1和3篇文章中研究了动作和记忆，分别。总的来说,参与者的满意度和可用性是最高的测试结果时，使用水平线条与彩色块。添加参考范围或个性化信息(例如，目标范围)进一步增加参与者的感知。此外,水平线条显着降低了参与者搜索信息或联系医生的倾向，与参考范围的数值进行比较。
结论：在这篇综述中，我们综合了实验室测试结果的有效呈现格式的现有证据.使用具有参考范围或个性化目标范围的水平线条增加了参与者的认知感知和交流感知，同时减少了参与者与医生联系的趋势。动作和记忆被研究的频率较低，因此，无法得出关于这些结果的单一首选格式的结论。因此,建议使用带有参考范围或个性化目标范围的水平线条，以增强患者对实验室检查结果的信息处理。进一步的研究应集中在现实生活中的设置和不同的演示格式，并结合与患者信息处理相关的结果。
目的：本研究旨在综合提供数字实验室检查结果的有效格式的证据，重点关注与患者信息处理相关的结果，包括情感感知，感知的幅度，认知知觉，沟通的感知，decision,行动,和记忆。
方法：搜索在3个数据库中进行（PubMed，WebofScience,和Embase)从成立到2023年5月31日。我们包括定量的，定性，以及描述或比较向患者提供诊断实验室测试结果的格式的混合方法文章。两名审阅者独立地提取并综合了所使用的文章和演示格式的特征。纳入文章的质量由2名独立审稿人使用混合方法评估工具进行评估。
结果：共纳入18项研究，在研究设计和使用的主要结局方面存在异质性。文章的质量从差到优不等。大多数研究（n=16，89％）使用模拟测试结果。最常用的表示格式是具有参考范围的数值（n=12），带彩色块的水平线条（n=12），或具有数值的水平线条的组合（n=8）。所有研究都检查了感知作为一种结果，虽然在1和3篇文章中研究了动作和记忆，分别。总的来说,参与者的满意度和可用性是最高的测试结果时，使用水平线条与彩色块。添加参考范围或个性化信息(例如，目标范围)进一步增加参与者的感知。此外,水平线条显着降低了参与者搜索信息或联系医生的倾向，与参考范围的数值进行比较。
结论：在这篇综述中，我们综合了实验室测试结果的有效呈现格式的现有证据.使用具有参考范围或个性化目标范围的水平线条增加了参与者的认知感知和交流感知，同时减少了参与者与医生联系的趋势。动作和记忆被研究的频率较低，因此，无法得出关于这些结果的单一首选格式的结论。因此,建议使用带有参考范围或个性化目标范围的水平线条，以增强患者对实验室检查结果的信息处理。进一步的研究应集中在现实生活中的设置和不同的演示格式，并结合与患者信息处理相关的结果。
