Effective Communication of Pathology Results to Requesting Practitioners and Consumers

References

Page last updated: 14 May 2013

  1. AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) and AACR (Australasian Association of Cancer Registries) (2008). Cancer in Australia: an overview, 2008. Cancer Series No.46 (AIHW cat. no. CAN 42). AIHW, Canberra.
  2. Valenstein PN (2008). Formatting pathology reports: applying four design principles to improve communication and patient safety. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 132(1):84–94.
  3. Powsner SM, Costa J and Homer RJ (2000). Clinicians Are From Mars and Pathologists Are From Venus Clinician Interpretation of Pathology Reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124.
  4. Ruby SG (2000). Clinician interpretation of pathology reports: confusion or comprehension? Arch Pathol Lab Med 124(947-948).
  5. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing National Pathology Accreditation Advisory Council publications. Available from: http://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-npaac-publication.htm.
  6. DuBay WH (2006). Smart language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text. Costa Mesa:Impact Information.
  7. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL and Scott GO (2010). A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information. The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 40(4):292-296.
  8. Kim KY, Metzger A, Wigle PR and Choe PJ ( In Press). Evaluation of online consumer medication information Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, Corrected Proof, May 2010 doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2010.04.003.
  9. Williamson JML and Martin AG (Dec 2010 ). Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method. International journal of clinical practice 64(13):1824-1831.
  10. Kandula S and Zeng-Treitler Q (2008). Creating a Gold Standard for the Readability Measurement of Health Texts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc:353-357.
  11. Frost MH, Thompson R and Thiemann KB (1999). Importance of Format and Design in Print Patient Information. Cancer Practice 7(1):22-27.
  12. Arnold CL, Davis TC, Frempong JO, Humiston SG, A B, Kennen EM and Lloyd-Puryear M (2006). Assessment of newborn screening patient education materials. Pediatrics 117: S320-S325.
  13. Virginia J, Zite N and Wallace LS (2009). Over-the-counter ovulation prediction devices: do accompanying instructions adhere to low-literacy guidelines? The Journal of reproductive medicine 54(8):p.473-477.
  14. Ache K and Wallace L (2009). Are end-of-life patient education materials readable? Palliative Medicine 23(6):p.545-548.
  15. Bafuka FN (2009). Beyond text analysis : image-based evaluation of health-related text readability using style features. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  16. Mosenthal P and Kirsch I (1998). A new measure for assessing document complexity: The PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 41:638-657.
  17. Cross S, Feeley K and Angel C (1998). The effect of four interventions on the informational content of histopathology reports of resected colorectal carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 51:481-482.
  18. Mathers M, Shrimankar J, Scott D, Charlton F, Griffith C and Angus B (2001). The use of a standard proforma in breast cancer reporting. Journal of Clinical Pathology 54(10):809–811.
  19. Srigley JR, McGowan T, MacLean A, Raby M, Ross J, Kramer S and Sawka C (2009). Standardized synoptic cancer pathology reporting: A population-based approach. Journal of Surgical Oncology 99(8):517–524.
  20. Gill A, Johns A, Eckstein R, Samra J, Kaufman A, Chang D, Merrett N, Cosman P, Smith R, Biankin A and Kench J (2009). Synoptic reporting improves histopathological assessment of pancreatic resection specimens. Pathology 41(2):161 - 167
  21. Ibarra JA ( 2005). The Importance of Synoptic Pathology Reports. Seminars in Breast Disease 8(1):31-34.
  22. Leslie K and Rosai J (1994). Standardization of the surgical pathology report: formats, templates, and synoptic reports. Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 11(4):253–257.
  23. Goldsmith JD, Siegal GP, Suster S, Wheeler TM and Brown RW (2008). Reporting guidelines for clinical laboratory reports in surgical pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 132(10):1608-1616.
  24. CAP (College of American Pathologists) (2009). Cancer protocols and checklists Available from: <http://www.cap.org/apps/cap.portal?_nfpb=true&cntvwrPtlt_actionOverride=%2Fportlets%2FcontentViewer%2Fshow&_windowLabel=cntvwrPtlt&cntvwrPtlt%7BactionForm.contentReference%7D=committees%2Fcancer%2Fcancer_protocols%2Fprotocols_index.html&_state=maximized&_pageLabel=cntvwr > (Accessed 13 October 2009).
  25. RCP (Royal College of Pathologists) (2009). Datasets and tissue pathways RCP Available from: <http://www.rcpath.org/index.asp?PageID=254> (Accessed 13th Oct 09).
  26. RCPA (Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia) (2010). Structured Pathology Reporting of Cancer Protocols. Available from: www.rcpa.edu.au/Publications/StructuredReporting/cancerprotocols.htm.
  27. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology (1992). Standardization of the Surgical Pathology Report. Am J Surg Pathol 16:84-86.
  28. Australan Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare (2006). National Inpatient Medication Chart http://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/internet/safety/publishing.nsf/content/NIMC_001.
  29. National E-Health Transition Authority (30 June 2009). Environment Scan: The Pathology Industry Version 1.0.
  30. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists and Associate Professor Stacy Goergen (2010). Radiology Written Report Guideline Project. Full guideline document for public consultation.
  31. National Health Service NHS (2011). Common User Interface Available from: <http://www.cui.nhs.uk/Pages/NHSCommonUserInterface.aspx> (Accessed 13th June 2011).
  32. Mahajan R and Shneiderman B (1997). Visual and Textual consistency checking tools for graphical user interfaces. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 23(11):722-735.
  33. Kosslyn SM (1994). Image and Brain. The MIT Press, Massachusetts.
  34. Ponton K (2008). Concepts of Interface Usability and the Enhancement of Design through Eye Tracking and Psychophysiology. Maritime Operations Division. Defence Science and Technology Organisation.
  35. Nygren E, Wyatt JC and Wright P (1998). Helping clinicians to find data and avoid delays. Lancet 352:1462-1466.
  36. Nygren E, Johnson M and Henriksson P (1992). Reading the medical record, I: analysis of physicians’ ways of reading the medical record. Computer Meth Programs. Biomed 39:1-12.
  37. Nygren E (1997). From paper to computer screen. Human information processing and interfaces to patient data. IMIA WG6 Conference on Natural Language and Medical Concept Representation, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
  38. Miller A, Scheinkestel C and Steele C (2009). The effects of clinical information presentation on physicians' and nurses' decision-making in ICUs. Appl Ergon 40(4):753-756.
  39. Hartley J (2000). Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 88(4):332-337.
  40. Sedig K, Rowhani S and Liang H (2005). Designing interfaces that support formation of cognitive maps of transitional processes: An empirical study. Interacting with Computers 17(4):419-452.
  41. Cartmill RSV and Thornton JG (1992). Effect of presentation of partogram information on obstetric decision-making. Lancet 339:1520-1522.
  42. Verheij R, Hoecke JOO, Bonke B, van Strik R and Gelsema ES (1997). Evaluation of techniques for the presentation of laboratory data. I: Time needed for interpretation. Methods Inf Med. 36:11-16.
  43. Cole WG and Steward JG (1994). Human performance evaluation of a metaphor graphic display for respiratory data Methods Inf Med. 33:390-396.
  44. Elting L, Martin CG, Cantor SB and Rubenstein EB (1998). Influence of data display on physician investigators’ decisions to stop trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ 317:1527-1531.
  45. Rousseau GK (1998). Designing warnings to compensate for age related changes in perceptual and cognitive abilities. Psychology & Marketing 15(7):643.
  46. De Lange RW, Esterhuizen HL and Beatty D (1993). Performance differences between Times and Helvetica in a reading task. Electronic Publishing 6(3):241-248.
  47. Perles P (1977). Readability, Has It Gone? Or, Pity the Poor Reader. Direct Marketing 39(10):32-40.
  48. Craig J (1980). Designing with Type: A Basic Course in Typography. Watson-Guptill Publications. , New York.
  49. Vanderplas J and Vanderplas J (1980). Some Factors Affecting Legibility of Printed Materials. Perceptual and Motor Skills 50(1):1923-1932.
  50. Spencer H (1968). The Visible Word. Humphries L, London.
  51. Rayner K and Pollatsek A (1989). The psychology of reading. Prentice Hall, Cliffs, Englewood NJ.
  52. Tinker MA (1963). Legibility of Print. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.
  53. Zachrisson B (1965). Studies in the Legibility of Printed Text. Almqvist & Wiksell., Stockholm.
  54. Tullis TS, Boynton JL and Hersh H (1995). Readability of Fonts in the Windows Environment (Interactive Poster). Proceedings of ACM CHI’95 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
  55. Moriarty S and Scheiner E (1984). A study of close-set type. Journal of Applied Psychology 69:700-702.
  56. Poulton EC ( 1972). Size, style, and vertical spacing in the legibility of small typefaces. J Appl Psychol. 56(2):156-161.
  57. Watanabe RK (1994). The Ability of the Geriatric Population to Read Labels on Over-the-Counter Medication Containers. Journal of the American Optometric Association 65:32-37.
  58. Bernard M, Mills M, Peterson M and Storrer K (2001). A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which is Best and When?, Useability News Software Usability Research Laboratory (SURL) at Wichita State University, 3.
  59. Bernard M, Lida B, Riley S, Hackler T and Janzen K (2002). A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts: Which Size and Type is Best?, Useability News, Software Usability Research Laboratory (SURL) at Wichita State University.
  60. Bix L (2002). The Elements of Text and Message Design and Their Impact on Message Legibility: A Literature Review. Journal of Design Communication, No. 4. Available at: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JDC/Spring-2002/bix.html.
  61. Summer F (1932). Influence of Color on Legibility of Copy. Journal of Applied Psychology 16:201-204.
  62. Arnold E (1972). Ink on Paper. Harper and Row Publishers, New York.
  63. Bradley B, Singleton M and Li Wan Po A (1994). Readability of patient information leaflets on over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. J Clin Pharm Ther 19(1):7-15.
  64. Wheildon C (1995). Type and Layout: How Typography and Design Can Get your Message Across - Or Get in the Way. Strathmoor Press, Berkeley.
  65. Doak CC, Doak LG and Root JH (1996). Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. 2nd edn Lippincott: Williams and Wilkins.
  66. Chen JL and Stanney KM (1999). A theoretical model of wayfinding in virtual environments: proposed strategies for navigational aiding. Presence 8(6):671-685.
  67. Rayner K (1998). Eye Movements in Reading and Information Processing: 20 years of Research. Psychological Bulletin 124(3):372-422.
  68. Jacobson JZ and Dodwell PC (1979). Saccadic eye movements during reading. Brain and Language 8:303-314.
  69. Morrison RE and Inhoff AW (1981). Visual factors and eye movements in reading. Visible Language 15:129-146.
  70. Duchowski A (2002). A breadth-first survey of eye-tracking applications. Behavior research methods instruments computers a journal of the Psychonomic Society Inc 34(4):455-470.
  71. Outing S and Ruel L The Best of Eyetrack III: What We Saw When We Looked Through Their Eyes. Available at: http://www.poynterextra.org/eyetrack2004/main.htm.
  72. The Bridge Marketing that works Eye tracking produces effective copy. Available at: http://www.thebridgeeffect.co.nz/blog/marketing-research/eye-tracking-produces-effective-copy.
  73. Gould JD et al (1986). Why reading was slower from CRT displays than from paper. CHI '87 Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI conference on Human factors in computing systems and graphics interface New York, NY, USA.
  74. Dillon A (1992). Reading from paper versus screens: a critical review of the empirical literature. Ergonomics 35(10):1297-1326.
  75. Eyetrack III Research Findings Online news consumer behavior in the age of multimedia. Available at : http://www.poynterextra.org/eyetrack2004/. Poynter Institute, St Petersburg, Florida
  76. Boiarsky C (2002). A Preliminary Report on Two Pilot Readability/Usability Studies. Available at: http://www.stc.org/confproceed/2002/PDFs/STC49-00057.pdf. STC Proceedings.
  77. Wyatt J (1999). Same information, different decisions: format counts. BMJ 318(7):1501-1502.