Abstract
Patient portals have helped accelerate patient engagement in treatment. Patient understanding of radiology reports has become a necessity, and we are working to design a patient-friendly radiology report that can be easily understood. We have based the design of this new radiology report on the results of a previous study that examined patient desires and needs by exploring their questions posted on online discussion forums. The current design was tested by presenting it in two groups, a control group, and an intervention group. In our evaluation, we relied on the following five concepts: understanding (quiz), cosmetics appearance, perceived ease of use, acceptance, and preference. The results showed that the new design outperformed the current design in all five concepts with an overall of (P < .00). Based on these results, we have determined that the radiology report should include both an image and notes section, and the design can be applied to all types of radiological examinations using various imaging devices. We believe this design will be an important building block in facilitating patient understanding of radiology reports.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rocha DM, Brasil LM, Lamas JM, Luz GV, Bacelar SS: Evidence of the benefits, advantages and potentialities of the structured radiological report: An integrative review. Artif Intell Med 102:101770, 2020
Alarifi M, Patrick T, Jabour A, Wu M, Luo J: Full Radiology Report through Patient Web Portal: A Literature Review. Int J Env Res Pub He 17:3673, 2020
Lee CI, Langlotz CP, Elmore JG: Implications of direct patient online access to radiology reports through patient web portals. JACR 13:1608-1614, 2016
Johnson AJ, Frankel RM, Williams LS, Glover S, Easterling D: Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think? JACR 7:281-289, 2010
Olthof AW, de Groot JC, Zorgdrager AN, van Ooijen PMA: Perception of radiology reporting efficacy by neurologists in general and university hospitals. Clin Radiol 73:675. e1–675. e7, 2018
Yi PH, Golden SK, Harringa JB, Kliewer MA: Readability of lumbar spine MRI reports: will patients understand? AJR 212:602-606, 2019
Martin-Carreras T, Kahn Jr CE: Coverage and readability of information resources to help patients understand radiology reports. JACR 15:1681-1686, 2018
Gutzeit A, Heiland R, Sudarski S, Froehlich JM, Hergan K, Meissnitzer M, Kos S, Bertke P, Kolokythas O, Koh DM: Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations. Should radiologists rethink their patient care? Eur Radiol. 29:224–231, 2019
Alarifi M, Patrick T, Jabour A, Wu M, Luo J: Understanding patient needs and gaps in radiology reports through online discussion forum analysis. Insights Into Imaging (forthcoming) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00930-2
Netter FH: Atlas of human anatomy, 7th edition, Plate 162. 2014: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Cleveland WS, McGill R: Graphical perception: Theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J Am Stat Assoc 79:531-554, 1984
Hegarty M: The cognitive science of visual‐spatial displays: Implications for design. Top Cogn Sci 3:446-474, 2011
Khasnabish S, Burns Z, Couch M, Mullin M, Newmark R, Dykes PC: Best practices for data visualization: creating and evaluating a report for an evidence-based fall prevention program. J Am Med Inform Assn 27:308-314, 2020
Ratwani RM, Trafton JG, Boehm-Davis DA: Thinking graphically: Connecting vision and cognition during graph comprehension. J Exp Psychol 14:36, 2008
Davis CR, McNair AG, Brigic A, Clarke MG, Brookes ST, Thomas MG, Blazeby JM: Optimising methods for communicating survival data to patients undergoing cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer 46:3192-3199, 2010
Alverson CY, Yamamoto SH: Educational decision making with visual data and graphical interpretation: assessing the effects of user preference and accuracy. Sage Open 6:2158244016678290, 2016
O'Brien S, Lauer C: Testing the susceptibility of users to deceptive data visualizations when paired with explanatory text. in Proceedings of the 36th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, 2018.
Gichoya JW, Alarifi M, Bhaduri R, Tahir B, Purkayastha S: Using cognitive fit theory to evaluate patient understanding of medical images. in 2017 39th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC). IEEE, 2017
Oladiran O, Gichoya J, Purkayastha S: Conversion of JPG Image into DICOM Image Format with One Click Tagging. in International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management. Springer, 2017
He Z: Understanding and Bridging the Language and Terminology Gap Between Health Professionals and Consumers Using Social Media, in Social Web and Health Research. Springer 103–121, 2019
Vitzthum von Eckstaedt H, Kitts AB, Swanson C, Hanley M, Krishnaraj A: Patient-centered radiology reporting for lung cancer screening. J Thora Imag. 35:85-90, 2020
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
This is an observational study. The University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee Institutional Research Ethics Committee has confirmed that no ethical approval is required.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Alarifi, M., Patrick, T., Jabour, A. et al. Designing a Consumer-Friendly Radiology Report using a Patient-Centered Approach. J Digit Imaging 34, 705–716 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-021-00448-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10278-021-00448-z