Laypeople's (Mis)Understanding of Common Medical Acronyms
- PMID: 37743804
- PMCID: PMC10520264
- DOI: 10.1542/hpeds.2023-007282
Laypeople's (Mis)Understanding of Common Medical Acronyms
Abstract
Objectives: Abbreviations are often used in medicine yet may be a source of confusion for patients and their families. We aimed to determine the general public's understanding of commonly used medical acronyms.
Methods: For this cross-sectional study, we surveyed state fair visitors regarding their understanding of 5 common medical acronyms. An electronic survey was administered to a volunteer sample of adults who spoke and read English and who had never trained to work in medicine or nursing. Free-text responses were coded as correct, partially correct, or incorrect by 2 independent researchers, adding a third researcher if consensus was not reached. Analysis methods included descriptive statistics, Fisher exact tests, and multivariable logistic regression models.
Results: We recruited 204 volunteers (55% female; mean age 43 years; 67% had a bachelor's degree or higher). ED (emergency department) was correctly defined by 32%, PCP (primary care provider/physician) by 18%, CBC (complete blood count) by 14%, and PRN (as needed) and NPO (nothing by mouth) by 13% each. Female gender was associated with higher odds of correctly understanding NPO (odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-8.21; P = .02); older age was associated with higher odds of understanding PRN (odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.05; P = .04). Education level was not found to correlate significantly with successful explanation of any tested acronym.
Conclusions: Medical acronyms are a predictable source of miscommunication. In this large cross-sectional study, none of the acronyms evaluated was understood correctly by more than one-third of adults. Clinicians should avoid using acronyms with patients and families to minimize confusion.
Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Conflict of interest statement
Comment in
-
Teaching Without Jargon.Hosp Pediatr. 2023 Oct 1;13(10):e299-e300. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2023-007353. Hosp Pediatr. 2023. PMID: 37743822 No abstract available.
References
-
- Killian L, Coletti M. The role of universal health literacy precautions in minimizing “medspeak” and promoting shared decision making. AMA J Ethics. 2017;19(3):296–303 - PubMed
-
- Charpentier V, Gotlieb R, Praska CE, Hendrickson M, Pitt MB, Marmet J. Say what? Quantifying and classifying jargon use during inpatient rounds. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11(4):406–410 - PubMed
-
- Miller AN, Bharathan A, Duvuuri VNS, et al. . Use of seven types of medical jargon by male and female primary care providers at a university health center. Patient Educ Couns. 2022;105(5):1261–1267 - PubMed
-
- Castro CM, Wilson C, Wang F, Schillinger D. Babel babble: physicians’ use of unclarified medical jargon with patients. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(suppl 1):S85–S95 - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources