{"title":"基因检测结果电子申报表内容和设计的患者建议:通过互联网访问基因检测结果的患者访谈研究。","authors":"Diane M Korngiebel, Kathleen McGlone West","doi":"10.2196/29706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic test results will be increasingly made available electronically as more patient-facing tools are developed; however, little research has been done that collects data on patient preferences for content and design before creating results templates.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study identifies patient preferences for the electronic return of genetic test results, including what considerations should be prioritized for content and design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following user-centered design methods, 59 interviews were conducted by using semistructured protocols. The interviews explored the content and design issues of patient portals that facilitated the return of test results to patients. We interviewed patients who received electronic results for specific types of genetics tests (pharmacogenetic tests, hereditary blood disorder tests, and tests for the risk of heritable cancers) or electronically received any type of genetic or nongenetic test results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, many of participants felt that there always needed to be some clinician involvement in electronic result returns and that electronic coversheets with simple summaries would be helpful for facilitating this. Coversheet summaries could accompany, but not replace, the more detailed report. Participants had specific suggestions for such results summaries, such as only reporting the information that was the most important for patients to understand, including next steps, and doing so by using clear language that is free of medical jargon. Electronic result returns should also include explicit encouragement for patients to contact health care providers about questions. Finally, many participants preferred to manage their care by using their smartphones, particularly in instances when they needed to access health information on the go.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants recommended that a patient-friendly front section should accompany the more detailed report and made suggestions for organization, content, and wording. Many used their smartphones regularly to access test results; therefore, health systems and patient portal software vendors should accommodate smartphone app design and web portal design concomitantly when developing platforms for returning results.</p>","PeriodicalId":73558,"journal":{"name":"JMIRx med","volume":"3 2","pages":"e29706"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10414314/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Recommendations for the Content and Design of Electronic Returns of Genetic Test Results: Interview Study Among Patients Who Accessed Their Genetic Test Results via the Internet.\",\"authors\":\"Diane M Korngiebel, Kathleen McGlone West\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/29706\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Genetic test results will be increasingly made available electronically as more patient-facing tools are developed; however, little research has been done that collects data on patient preferences for content and design before creating results templates.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study identifies patient preferences for the electronic return of genetic test results, including what considerations should be prioritized for content and design.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following user-centered design methods, 59 interviews were conducted by using semistructured protocols. The interviews explored the content and design issues of patient portals that facilitated the return of test results to patients. We interviewed patients who received electronic results for specific types of genetics tests (pharmacogenetic tests, hereditary blood disorder tests, and tests for the risk of heritable cancers) or electronically received any type of genetic or nongenetic test results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, many of participants felt that there always needed to be some clinician involvement in electronic result returns and that electronic coversheets with simple summaries would be helpful for facilitating this. Coversheet summaries could accompany, but not replace, the more detailed report. Participants had specific suggestions for such results summaries, such as only reporting the information that was the most important for patients to understand, including next steps, and doing so by using clear language that is free of medical jargon. Electronic result returns should also include explicit encouragement for patients to contact health care providers about questions. Finally, many participants preferred to manage their care by using their smartphones, particularly in instances when they needed to access health information on the go.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants recommended that a patient-friendly front section should accompany the more detailed report and made suggestions for organization, content, and wording. Many used their smartphones regularly to access test results; therefore, health systems and patient portal software vendors should accommodate smartphone app design and web portal design concomitantly when developing platforms for returning results.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73558,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIRx med\",\"volume\":\"3 2\",\"pages\":\"e29706\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10414314/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIRx med\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/29706\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIRx med","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/29706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient Recommendations for the Content and Design of Electronic Returns of Genetic Test Results: Interview Study Among Patients Who Accessed Their Genetic Test Results via the Internet.
Background: Genetic test results will be increasingly made available electronically as more patient-facing tools are developed; however, little research has been done that collects data on patient preferences for content and design before creating results templates.
Objective: This study identifies patient preferences for the electronic return of genetic test results, including what considerations should be prioritized for content and design.
Methods: Following user-centered design methods, 59 interviews were conducted by using semistructured protocols. The interviews explored the content and design issues of patient portals that facilitated the return of test results to patients. We interviewed patients who received electronic results for specific types of genetics tests (pharmacogenetic tests, hereditary blood disorder tests, and tests for the risk of heritable cancers) or electronically received any type of genetic or nongenetic test results.
Results: In general, many of participants felt that there always needed to be some clinician involvement in electronic result returns and that electronic coversheets with simple summaries would be helpful for facilitating this. Coversheet summaries could accompany, but not replace, the more detailed report. Participants had specific suggestions for such results summaries, such as only reporting the information that was the most important for patients to understand, including next steps, and doing so by using clear language that is free of medical jargon. Electronic result returns should also include explicit encouragement for patients to contact health care providers about questions. Finally, many participants preferred to manage their care by using their smartphones, particularly in instances when they needed to access health information on the go.
Conclusions: Participants recommended that a patient-friendly front section should accompany the more detailed report and made suggestions for organization, content, and wording. Many used their smartphones regularly to access test results; therefore, health systems and patient portal software vendors should accommodate smartphone app design and web portal design concomitantly when developing platforms for returning results.