Cargando…

Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences

OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients’ preferences for management is not well under...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nickel, Brooke, Barratt, Alexandra, Copp, Tessa, Moynihan, Ray, McCaffery, Kirsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129
_version_ 1783254838813917184
author Nickel, Brooke
Barratt, Alexandra
Copp, Tessa
Moynihan, Ray
McCaffery, Kirsten
author_facet Nickel, Brooke
Barratt, Alexandra
Copp, Tessa
Moynihan, Ray
McCaffery, Kirsten
author_sort Nickel, Brooke
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients’ preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition. CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5541578
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55415782017-08-18 Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences Nickel, Brooke Barratt, Alexandra Copp, Tessa Moynihan, Ray McCaffery, Kirsten BMJ Open Communication OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients’ preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition. CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-07-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5541578/ /pubmed/28698318 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Communication
Nickel, Brooke
Barratt, Alexandra
Copp, Tessa
Moynihan, Ray
McCaffery, Kirsten
Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title_full Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title_fullStr Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title_full_unstemmed Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title_short Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
title_sort words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541578/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698318
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129
work_keys_str_mv AT nickelbrooke wordsdomatterasystematicreviewonhowdifferentterminologyforthesameconditioninfluencesmanagementpreferences
AT barrattalexandra wordsdomatterasystematicreviewonhowdifferentterminologyforthesameconditioninfluencesmanagementpreferences
AT copptessa wordsdomatterasystematicreviewonhowdifferentterminologyforthesameconditioninfluencesmanagementpreferences
AT moynihanray wordsdomatterasystematicreviewonhowdifferentterminologyforthesameconditioninfluencesmanagementpreferences
AT mccafferykirsten wordsdomatterasystematicreviewonhowdifferentterminologyforthesameconditioninfluencesmanagementpreferences