Cargando…

Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study

BACKGROUND: Patients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-tex...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Mens, Hugo J. T., van Eysden, Mirte M., Nienhuis, Remko, van Delden, Johannes J. M., de Keizer, Nicolette F., Cornet, Ronald
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7737248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33319706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01286-9
_version_ 1783622908177809408
author van Mens, Hugo J. T.
van Eysden, Mirte M.
Nienhuis, Remko
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
Cornet, Ronald
author_facet van Mens, Hugo J. T.
van Eysden, Mirte M.
Nienhuis, Remko
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
Cornet, Ronald
author_sort van Mens, Hugo J. T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-text data. The clarifications consisted of synonyms and definitions from a Dutch medical terminology system. We aimed to evaluate to what extent these lexical clarifications match the information needs of the patients. Secondarily, we evaluated how the clarifications and the functionality could be improved. METHODS: We invited participants from the patient panel of the UMC to read their own clinical notes. They marked terms they found difficult and rated the ease of these terms. After the functionality was activated, participants rated the clarifications provided by the functionality, and the functionality itself regarding ease and usefulness. Ratings were on a scale from 0 (very difficult) to 100 (very easy). We calculated the median number of terms not understood per participant, the number of terms with a clarification, the overlap between these numbers (coverage), and the precision and recall. RESULTS: We included 15 participants from the patient panel. They marked a median of 21 (IQR 19.5–31) terms as difficult in their text files, while only a median of 2 (IQR 1–4) of these terms were clarified by the functionality. The median precision was 6.5% (IQR 2.3–14.25%) and the median recall 8.3% (IQR 4.7–13.5%) per participant. However, participants rated the functionality with median ease of 98 (IQR 93.5–99) and a median usefulness of 79 (IQR 52.5–97). Participants found that many easy terms were unnecessarily clarified, that some clarifications were difficult, and that some clarifications contained mistakes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the functionality easy to use and useful. However, in its current form it only helped patients to understand few terms they did not understand, patients found some clarifications to be difficult, and some to be incorrect. This shows that lexical clarification is feasible even when limited terms are available, but needs further development to fully use its potential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7737248
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77372482020-12-15 Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study van Mens, Hugo J. T. van Eysden, Mirte M. Nienhuis, Remko van Delden, Johannes J. M. de Keizer, Nicolette F. Cornet, Ronald BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research BACKGROUND: Patients benefit from access to their medical records. However, clinical notes and letters are often difficult to comprehend for most lay people. Therefore, functionality was implemented in the patient portal of a Dutch university medical centre (UMC) to clarify medical terms in free-text data. The clarifications consisted of synonyms and definitions from a Dutch medical terminology system. We aimed to evaluate to what extent these lexical clarifications match the information needs of the patients. Secondarily, we evaluated how the clarifications and the functionality could be improved. METHODS: We invited participants from the patient panel of the UMC to read their own clinical notes. They marked terms they found difficult and rated the ease of these terms. After the functionality was activated, participants rated the clarifications provided by the functionality, and the functionality itself regarding ease and usefulness. Ratings were on a scale from 0 (very difficult) to 100 (very easy). We calculated the median number of terms not understood per participant, the number of terms with a clarification, the overlap between these numbers (coverage), and the precision and recall. RESULTS: We included 15 participants from the patient panel. They marked a median of 21 (IQR 19.5–31) terms as difficult in their text files, while only a median of 2 (IQR 1–4) of these terms were clarified by the functionality. The median precision was 6.5% (IQR 2.3–14.25%) and the median recall 8.3% (IQR 4.7–13.5%) per participant. However, participants rated the functionality with median ease of 98 (IQR 93.5–99) and a median usefulness of 79 (IQR 52.5–97). Participants found that many easy terms were unnecessarily clarified, that some clarifications were difficult, and that some clarifications contained mistakes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients found the functionality easy to use and useful. However, in its current form it only helped patients to understand few terms they did not understand, patients found some clarifications to be difficult, and some to be incorrect. This shows that lexical clarification is feasible even when limited terms are available, but needs further development to fully use its potential. BioMed Central 2020-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7737248/ /pubmed/33319706 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01286-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
van Mens, Hugo J. T.
van Eysden, Mirte M.
Nienhuis, Remko
van Delden, Johannes J. M.
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
Cornet, Ronald
Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title_full Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title_fullStr Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title_short Evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
title_sort evaluation of lexical clarification by patients reading their clinical notes: a quasi-experimental interview study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7737248/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33319706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01286-9
work_keys_str_mv AT vanmenshugojt evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy
AT vaneysdenmirtem evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy
AT nienhuisremko evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy
AT vandeldenjohannesjm evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy
AT dekeizernicolettef evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy
AT cornetronald evaluationoflexicalclarificationbypatientsreadingtheirclinicalnotesaquasiexperimentalinterviewstudy