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 h4NIjxC01307; Fri, 23 May 2003 14:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 14:45:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <sece3347.066@GMHNW5DC005.gmh.edu> 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: "Felicia Morton" <FMORTON@gmh.edu> To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3992] RE: New research on use of medical v lay X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 6.0.2 Status: O Content-Length: 6967 Lines: 227 Very interesting reference and discussion. I couldn't help but take away from this a feeling I've had in my gut for awhile: that health educators (that's ALL health educators - clinicians, writers, etc.) must bring patients' health literacy levels UP, AND (that's "AND" with emphasis) bring the complexity of health information/readability levels DOWN. The mantra of health education that "our job is not to teach people to read, but to make materials readable for the less skilled reader" still applies, but we are also responsible for making sure readers have the most complete and accurate information...even if a few poly-syllabic words are involved. Have a great holiday. >>> dwyoho@earthlink.net 05/23/03 01:03PM >>> Cynthia, thank you for this fascinating reference. My comment is: This just goes to show the complexity of health communications. When attempting to improve communication, this is an example about how "dumbing down" language or relying solely on lowering the reading level of materials can lead to many other problems. I notice in our literacy practice that it is almost a point of pride to say "I have diabetes" as opposed to "I got sugar". Debbie Deborah W. Yoho Co-moderator, NIFL-Health Listserv President, SC Adult Literacy Educators Executive Director, Greater Columbia Literacy Council 2728 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29205 803-765-2555 Fax 803-779-8417 dwyoho@earthlink.net > [Original Message] > From: Linda S. Potter <lspotter@att.net> > To: Multiple recipients of list <nifl-health@literacy.nifl.gov> > Date: 5/23/2003 9:40:57 AM > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3989] RE: New research on use of medical v lay language > > In fieldtesting the patient package inserts for various contraceptives, > we've been finding that most of the women interviewed preferred having both > terms. They also tended to recognize the medical names for any diseases they > themselves had that might contraindicate their using a particular method. > > In general the women preferred seeing the lay term first, then the medical > term. Some did not recognize parentheses or that the term in parentheses > meant the same as the lay term so "high blood pressure (hypertension)" did > not work as well as "high blood pressure (or hypertension)" Still using the > parentheses with the "or" seemed to make it clearer to the reader that the > medical term referred to the lay term and was not a separate condition. > > Data collection: We have always used 2-3 focus groups with providers, then > patients, and used their responses to revise the insert, then used "teach > back" in one-on-one interviews (n=75-100). This fieldtesting has been with > women patients between the ages of 18-44 in publically-funded family > planning clinics, so our somewhat tentative conclusions cannot necessarily > be generalized to other categories of patients or conditions. They may be a > good starting place though. > > > > ******************************** > Linda S. Potter, DrPH > Family Health Research > 56 N. Mill Road > Princeton Junction, NJ 08550 > tel: 609-716-6365 > fax: 609-716-4972 > email: lspotter@att.net > ******************************** > > -----Original Message----- > From: nifl-health@nifl.gov [mailto:nifl-health@nifl.gov]On Behalf Of > Baur, Cynthia > Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 9:47 AM > To: Multiple recipients of list > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3987] New research on use of medical v lay > language > > > 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. > Subject: [NIFL-HEALTH:3987] Ne > > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 11 2004 - 12:17:08 EST