↓ Skip to main content

Patient Preferences for Test Result Notification

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
Title
Patient Preferences for Test Result Notification
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1007/s11606-015-3344-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel K. Shultz, Robert Wu, John J. Matelski, Xin Lu, Peter Cram

Abstract

Patients are increasingly being given access to their test results, but little is known about how preferences vary with the test under consideration or the results of the test (normal or abnormal). This study was conducted to examine preferences for test result communication. We surveyed adults to explore their preferences for test result notification for three common diagnostic tests of varying "emotional impact" (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [DXA], genital herpes, and cancer biopsy) when test results were 1) normal and 2) abnormal. We conducted our survey between June and August 2012 on the campus of an academic medical center. For each scenario, subjects were asked to rank seven methods that might be used to communicate test results (letter, unsecured email, secured email, text message, telephone call, secure Web portal, office visit) in order of acceptability. The main measures were the percentage of respondents who ranked a particular test result notification method favorably and the percentage who ranked it as unacceptable. When test results were normal, subjects' notification preferences were generally similar for DXA, herpes and cancer biopsy, with telephone and letter ranked most favorably for all three tests. Conversely, text message and unsecured email were viewed as unacceptable notification methods for normal results by 45.0-55.0 % of subjects across all three tests. When test results were abnormal, office visits became more popular. A higher proportion of subjects ranked office visits as their most preferred notification method for our test with high "emotional impact" (cancer biopsy) (38.4 %) as compared to DXA (28.2 %) and herpes (27.9 %) (P = 0.02). For most test scenarios, younger subjects appeared to rank electronic communication modalities (secure email or Web portal) higher than older subjects, though this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.29). Preferences for test result notification can differ substantially depending upon the test under consideration and results of the test. Providers and health care systems should consider these factors when deciding how to communicate results to patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 4 8%
Other 10 20%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 18%
Computer Science 4 8%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Psychology 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 10 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2017.
All research outputs
#7,795,979
of 24,208,207 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,188
of 7,870 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,256
of 268,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#46
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,208,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,870 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 268,655 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.