Return-Path: <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Received: from literacy (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id h4NDldC16233; Fri, 23 May 2003 09:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 09:47:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <E1BF501B4C3AD511954D00508BB8E35F03F5B2C9@ophs1.ophs.gov> Errors-To: listowner@literacy.nifl.gov Reply-To: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Originator: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Sender: nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov Precedence: bulk From: "Baur, Cynthia" <CBaur@OSOPHS.DHHS.GOV> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3987] New research on use of medical v lay language X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Type: text/plain; X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) Status: O Content-Length: 3369 Lines: 70 I am very interested in the list's reaction to a new research study published in the journal "Family Practice." I have pasted in the URL and abstract below (tip: for wrap around URLs', you have to copy and paste each line separately into your browser). The full text is free online. The sound bite is that patients may prefer medical to lay language because the medical language provides a range of "benefits," of which understanding is only one consideration. Although the authors don't say this, maybe patients want both medical and lay language - one for legitimacy and the other for understanding. These findings would seem to have a direct relation to our work on health literacy and provider-patient communication. Comments on the findings? Cynthia Baur HHS http://fampra.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/20/3/248?ijkey=4f2e459105 82d511afa316074e04cd0bd4be321a Family Practice Vol. 20, No. 3, 248-253 What's in a name? An experimental study of patients' views of the impact and function of a diagnosis Jane Ogden, Ruben Branson, Annie Bryett, Amaryllis Campbell, Alberto Febles, Ian Ferguson, Hilary Lavender, Jacques Mizan, Robin Simpson and Michael Tayler Department of General Practice, Guys Kings and St Thomas's School of Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK. Correspondence to: Correspondence to Jane Ogden, Department of General Practice, GKT, 5 Lambeth Walk, London SE11 6SP, UK; E-mail: Jane.Ogden@kcl.ac.uk Objective. The aim of the present study was to examine patients' views about the relative impact and function of lay and medical diagnoses for stomach and throat problems. Methods. A questionnaire survey was carried out among 900 consecutive patients attending nine general practices across England. A total of 740 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 82.2%). Each participant rated a series of statements describing the impact upon the patient and the function for the doctor following both a stomach and a throat problem case scenario involving either a lay (stomach upset/sore throat) or medical (gastroenteritis/tonsillitis) label. Results. The results showed consistent differences between the lay and medical labels for both stomach and throat problems in terms of their impact upon the patient and their function for the doctor. In particular, the medical labels were rated as beneficial for the patient in terms of validating the sick role and improving their confidence in the doctor. In contrast, the lay labels resulted in a greater sense of ownership of the problem which could be associated with unwanted responsibility and blame. In addition, the medical labels were seen to provide the doctor with a greater sense of professionalism, as giving them a clearer role in the consultation and to imply less blame on the part of the patient. 'Stomach upset' was also seen as a more pragmatic label than 'gastroenteritis'. Conclusion. Although much current prescriptive literature in general practice advocates the use of lay language in the consultation as a means to promote better doctor-patient partnerships, the issue of diagnosis is more complex than this. Patients attribute greater benefits to the use of medical labels for themselves and state that such medical labels are of greater benefit to the doctor. Keywords. Diagnosis, doctor, patient communication, general practice, language.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST