Numbers, graphs and words - do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals?
- PMID: 33115536
- PMCID: PMC7592036
- DOI: 10.1186/s13584-020-00415-z
Numbers, graphs and words - do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals?
Abstract
Background: The heavy reliance on remote patient care (RPC) during the COVID-19 health crisis may have expedited the emergence of digital health tools that can contribute to safely and effectively moving the locus of care from the hospital to the community. Understanding how laypersons interpret the personal health information accessible to them via electronic patient records (EPRs) is crucial to healthcare planning and the design of services. Yet we still know little about how the format in which personal medical information is presented in the EPR (numerically, verbally, or graphically) affects individuals' understanding of the information, their assessment of its gravity, and the course of action they choose in response.
Methods: We employed an online questionnaire to assess respondents' reactions to 10 medical decision-making scenarios, where the same information was presented using different formats. In each scenario, respondents were presented with real (anonymized) patient lab results using either numeric expressions, graphs, or verbal expressions. Participants were asked to assess the gravity of the hypothetical patient's condition and the course of action they would follow if they were that patient. The questionnaire was distributed to more than 300 participants, of whom 225 submitted usable responses.
Results: Laypersons were more likely to overestimate the gravity of the information when it was presented either numerically or graphically compared to the narrative format. High perceived gravity was most likely to produce an inclination to actively seek medical attention, even when unwarranted. "Don't know" responses were most likely to produce an inclination to either search the Internet or wait for the doctor to call.
Policy recommendations: We discuss the study's implications for the effective design of lab results in the patient portals. We suggest (1) that graphs, tables, and charts would be easier to interpret if coupled with a brief verbal explanation; (2) that highlighting an overall level of urgency may be more helpful than indicating a diversion from the norm; and (3) that statements of results should include the type of follow-up required.
Keywords: Care seeking; Health information technology; Information format; Patient engagement.
Conflict of interest statement
The study was not funded by any Funding organizations. To the best of our knowledge, there are no competing interests.
Figures







Similar articles
-
Patients' Understanding of Health Information in Online Medical Records and Patient Portals: Analysis of the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey.J Med Internet Res. 2025 May 30;27:e62696. doi: 10.2196/62696. J Med Internet Res. 2025. PMID: 40446288 Free PMC article.
-
Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour.BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018 Feb 12;18(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12911-018-0589-7. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018. PMID: 29433495 Free PMC article.
-
Contextualizing numeric clinical test results for gist comprehension: Implications for EHR patient portals.J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019 Mar;25(1):41-61. doi: 10.1037/xap0000203. Epub 2019 Jan 28. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019. PMID: 30688498
-
Factors that impact Patient Web Portal Readiness (PWPR) among the underserved.Int J Med Inform. 2017 Jun;102:62-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.03.004. Epub 2017 Mar 10. Int J Med Inform. 2017. PMID: 28495349
-
Patient Portals Facilitating Engagement With Inpatient Electronic Medical Records: A Systematic Review.J Med Internet Res. 2019 Apr 11;21(4):e12779. doi: 10.2196/12779. J Med Internet Res. 2019. PMID: 30973347 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models vs Peer Patients for Interpreting Lab Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study.ArXiv [Preprint]. 2024 Jan 23:arXiv:2402.01693v1. ArXiv. 2024. Update in: J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e56655. doi: 10.2196/56655. PMID: 38529075 Free PMC article. Updated. Preprint.
-
Patient and Health Care Provider Perspectives on Patient Access to Test Results via Web Portals: Scoping Review.J Med Internet Res. 2023 Oct 19;25:e43765. doi: 10.2196/43765. J Med Internet Res. 2023. PMID: 37856174 Free PMC article.
-
Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Aug 12;26:e53993. doi: 10.2196/53993. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 39133906 Free PMC article.
-
Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review.Br J Gen Pract. 2025 Mar 27;75(753):e222-e231. doi: 10.3399/BJGP.2024.0338. Print 2025 Apr. Br J Gen Pract. 2025. PMID: 39374979 Free PMC article.
-
Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models Versus Peer Users for Interpreting Laboratory Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study.J Med Internet Res. 2024 Apr 17;26:e56655. doi: 10.2196/56655. J Med Internet Res. 2024. PMID: 38630520 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Hollander JE, Carr BG. Virtually perfect? Telemedicine for COVID-19. NEJM. 2020;382(18):1679–1681. - PubMed
-
- Kellermann AL, Jones SS. What it will take to achieve the as-yet-unfulfilled promises of health information technology. Health Aff. 2013;32(1):63–68. - PubMed
-
- Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Health IT: Advancing America’s Health Care (fact sheet). https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/health-information-tech....
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous