Effective Communication of Pathology Results to Requesting Practitioners and Consumers

What Information Participants Understood (Comprehension)

Page last updated: 14 May 2013

In general, participants understood the information about the disease (mean= 5.3 out of 7) and the test results (mean= 5.6 out of 7). Understanding the information about disease was measured using 24 items that asked about each piece of information in the prototypes and then the values given for each item by participants were summed to have a total value for the understanding. The same procedures (measured using 8 items) applied to the information about the test results.

Information was expressed using two attitude styles: value-expressive or utilitarian. The utilitarian attitude-style presents the health message (piece of information or the risks in the prototype) in a manner that emphasises practical considerations such as money or time (e.g. avoid expensive drugs). The value-expressive attitude-style presents the health message in a manner that emphasises self-image of an individual or social outcomes (e.g. poor health makes an individual less attractive). Participants understood the information about disease that was written using value-expressive style more than if it was written using utilitarian style. In contrast, they understood the test results that were written using utilitarian style slightly more than if these results was written using value-expressive style.

Information was also expressed using two cognitive styles: rational (fact-based) and experiential (case-studies). The rational (fact-based) style presents the health message (piece of information or the risks in the prototype) using abstract symbols, words, and numbers. The experiential (case-studies) presents the health message using concrete images, metaphors, and narratives. There were no significant differences between participants in understanding the information about disease and the test results if this information was written either using rational (fact-based) and experiential (case-studies) style. However, participants understood the information about disease slightly more if it was written using rational (fact-based) style while they understood the test results slightly more if it was written using experiential (case-studies) style.