Healthcare providers' understanding of data displays of clinical trial information: a scoping review of the literature.

Q2 Social Sciences
Jessica Thompson, Roberta C Wines, Micaela Brewington, Karen Crotty, Kathryn J Aikin, Helen Sullivan
{"title":"Healthcare providers' understanding of data displays of clinical trial information: a scoping review of the literature.","authors":"Jessica Thompson, Roberta C Wines, Micaela Brewington, Karen Crotty, Kathryn J Aikin, Helen Sullivan","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2022.2150236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Healthcare providers often encounter clinical trial results in the form of visual data displays. Although there is a robust literature on patient responses to data displays in medical settings, less is known about how providers comprehend and apply this information. Our study provides a scoping review of the literature on providers' reactions to and perceptions of data displays.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched article databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library) supplemented by handsearching. Eligible articles were published in English from 1990 to 2020.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 15 articles meeting our criteria. Studies with physicians were more prevalent (13/15) than those with other healthcare providers (6/15). Commonly assessed outcomes included objective (10/15) and subjective comprehension (4/15), preference for certain data display formats (6/15), and hypothetical decision-making around prescribing (4/15). In studies that assessed comprehension of clinical trial concepts, scores were average or below what would be considered mastery of the information. Data display formats that were preferred did not always correlate with better comprehension of information; lesser preferred formats (e.g. icon array) often resulted in better comprehension.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that healthcare providers may not accurately interpret complex types of data displays, and it is unknown if such limitations affect actual decision-making. Interventions are needed to enhance comprehension of complex data displays within the context of prescription drug professional promotion.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":"1 1","pages":"260-267"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10589436/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2022.2150236","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Healthcare providers often encounter clinical trial results in the form of visual data displays. Although there is a robust literature on patient responses to data displays in medical settings, less is known about how providers comprehend and apply this information. Our study provides a scoping review of the literature on providers' reactions to and perceptions of data displays.

Methods: We searched article databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library) supplemented by handsearching. Eligible articles were published in English from 1990 to 2020.

Results: We identified 15 articles meeting our criteria. Studies with physicians were more prevalent (13/15) than those with other healthcare providers (6/15). Commonly assessed outcomes included objective (10/15) and subjective comprehension (4/15), preference for certain data display formats (6/15), and hypothetical decision-making around prescribing (4/15). In studies that assessed comprehension of clinical trial concepts, scores were average or below what would be considered mastery of the information. Data display formats that were preferred did not always correlate with better comprehension of information; lesser preferred formats (e.g. icon array) often resulted in better comprehension.

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that healthcare providers may not accurately interpret complex types of data displays, and it is unknown if such limitations affect actual decision-making. Interventions are needed to enhance comprehension of complex data displays within the context of prescription drug professional promotion.

医疗保健提供者对临床试验信息数据显示的理解:文献范围综述
背景:医疗保健提供者经常以可视化数据显示的形式遇到临床试验结果。尽管在医疗环境中有大量关于患者对数据显示的反应的文献,但对于提供者如何理解和应用这些信息却知之甚少。我们的研究对供应商对数据显示的反应和感知的文献进行了范围审查。方法:检索文献数据库(PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library),并辅以手工检索。符合条件的文章于1990年至2020年以英文出版。结果:我们确定了15篇符合我们标准的文章。与内科医生进行的研究(13/15)比与其他医疗保健提供者进行的研究(6/15)更为普遍。通常评估的结果包括客观(10/15)和主观理解(4/15),对某些数据显示格式的偏好(6/15),以及围绕处方的假设决策(4/15)。在评估对临床试验概念理解的研究中,得分为平均水平或低于被认为掌握信息的水平。首选的数据显示格式并不总是与更好地理解信息相关;较不受欢迎的格式(例如图标数组)通常会导致更好的理解。结论:我们的研究结果表明,医疗保健提供者可能不能准确地解释复杂类型的数据显示,并且这种限制是否影响实际决策是未知的。在处方药专业推广的背景下,需要采取干预措施来提高对复杂数据显示的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信