Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Insights into Imaging
Published in: Insights into Imaging 1/2021

01-12-2021 | Original Article

Understanding patient needs and gaps in radiology reports through online discussion forum analysis

Authors: Mohammad Alarifi, Timothy Patrick, Abdulrahman Jabour, Min Wu, Jake Luo

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Our objective is to investigate patient needs and understand information gaps in radiology reports using patient questions that were posted on online discussion forums. We leveraged online question and answer platforms to collect questions posted by patients to understand current gaps and patient needs. We retrieved six hundred fifty-nine (659) questions using the following sites: Yahoo Answers, Reddit.com, Quora, and Wiki Answers. The questions retrieved were analyzed and the major themes and topics were identified. The questions retrieved were classified into eight major themes. The themes were related to the following topics: radiology report, safety, price, preparation, procedure, meaning, medical staff, and patient portal. Among the 659 questions, 35.50% were concerned with the radiology report. The most common question topics in the radiology report focused on patient understanding of the radiology report (62 of 234 [26.49%]), image visualization (53 of 234 [22.64%]), and report representation (46 of 234 [19.65%]). We also found that most patients were concerned about understanding the MRI report (32%; n = 143) compared with the other imaging modalities (n = 434). Using online discussion forums, we discussed major unmet patient needs and information gaps in radiology reports. These issues could be improved to enhance radiology design in the future.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Dunnick NR, Langlotz CP (2008) The radiology report of the future: a summary of the 2007 Intersociety Conference. J Am Coll Radiol 5(5):626–629PubMedCrossRef
2.
Olthof A, de Groot JC, Zorgdrager AN, van Ooijen PM (2008) Perception of radiology reporting efficacy by neurologists in general and university hospitals. Clin Radiol 73(7):675. e1-675. e7
3.
Yi PH, Golden SK, Harringa JB, Kliewer MA (2019) Readability of lumbar spine MRI reports: will patients understand? AJR Am J Roentgenol 212(3):602–606PubMedCrossRef
4.
Martin-Carreras T, Kahn CE Jr (2018) Coverage and readability of information resources to help patients understand radiology reports. J Am Coll Radiol 15(12):1681–1686PubMedCrossRef
5.
Hayashi D, Guermazi A (2018) Taking a proactive role in patient management of important incidental imaging findings: how can we increase the ‘value’ of diagnostic radiology service and improve quality of patient care? Jpn J Radiol 36(10):579–580PubMedCrossRef
6.
Gutzeit A, Heiland R, Sudarski S et al (2019) Direct communication between radiologists and patients following imaging examinations Should radiologists rethink their patient care? Eur Radiol 29(1):224–231PubMedCrossRef
7.
Gray BR, Gunderman RB (2019) Constricting the radiologic lexicon: an orwellian errand? Acad Radiol 26(2):300–301PubMedCrossRef
8.
Miles RC, Hippe DS, Elmore JG, Wang CL, Payne TH, Lee CI (2016) Patient access to online radiology reports: frequency and sociodemographic characteristics associated with use. Acad Radiol 23(9):1162–1169PubMedCrossRef
9.
Lee CI, Langlotz CP, Elmore JG (2016) Implications of direct patient online access to radiology reports through patient web portals. J Am Coll Radiol 13(12):1608–1614PubMedCrossRef
10.
Henshaw D, Okawa G, Ching K, Garrido T, Qian H, Tsai J (2015) Access to radiology reports via an online patient portal: experiences of referring physicians and patients. J Am Coll Radiol 12(6):582–586. e1PubMedCrossRef
11.
Johnson AJ, Easterling D, Williams LS, Glover S, Frankel RM (2009) Insight from patients for radiologists: improving our reporting systems. J Am Coll Radiol 6(11):786–794PubMedCrossRef
12.
Househ M, Borycki E, Kushniruk A (2014) Empowering patients through social media: the benefits and challenges. Health Informatics J 20(1):50–58PubMedCrossRef
13.
Bear RA, Stockie S (2014) Patient engagement and patient-centred care in the management of advanced chronic kidney disease and chronic kidney failure. Can J Kidney Health Dis 1:24PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Cukor D, Cohen LM, Cope EL et al (2016) Patient and other stakeholder engagement in patient-centered outcomes research institute funded studies of patients with kidney diseases. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 11(9):1703–1712PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Martinez LS, Carolan K, O’Donnell A, Diaz Y, Freeman ER (2018) Community engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: benefits, barriers, and measurement. J Clin Transl Sci 2(6):371–376CrossRef
16.
17.
18.
Alarifi M, Patrick T, Jabour A, Wu M, Luo J (2020) Full radiology report through patient web portal: a literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(10):3673PubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
Smith JJ, Berlin L (2001) Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) and the loss of patient examination records. AJR Am J Roentgenol 176(6):1381–1384PubMedCrossRef
20.
21.
Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M et al (2013) Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff 32(2):223–231CrossRef
22.
Jeffreys MC (2017) Treatment adherence and engagement in a transdiagnostic behavioral treatment for pediatric anxiety and depression. UC San Diego
23.
Johnson AJ, Frankel RM, Williams LS, Glover S, Easterling D (2010) Patient access to radiology reports: what do physicians think? J Am Coll Radiol 7(4):281–289PubMedCrossRef
24.
Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Differences in perceptions among radiologists, referring physicians, and patients regarding language for incidental findings reporting. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208(1):140–143PubMedCrossRef
25.
Charlie AM, Gao Y, Heller SL (2018) What do patients want to know? Questions and concerns regarding mammography expressed through social media. J Am Coll Radiol 15(10):1478–1486PubMedCrossRef
26.
Lee K, Hoti K, Hughes JD, Emmerton L (2014) Dr Google and the consumer: a qualitative study exploring the navigational needs and online health information-seeking behaviors of consumers with chronic health conditions. J Med Internet Res 16(12):e262PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Sarrazin MSV, Cram P, Mazur A, Ward M, Reisinger HS (2014) Patient perspectives of dabigatran: analysis of online discussion forums. Patient 7(1):47–54CrossRef
28.
Rastegar-Mojarad M, Liu H, Nambisan P (2016) Using social media data to identify potential candidates for drug repurposing: a feasibility study. JMIR Res Protoc 5(2):e121PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
29.
Park MS, He Z, Chen Z, Oh S, Bian J (2016) Consumers’ use of UMLS concepts on social media: diabetes-related textual data analysis in blog and social Q&A sites. JMIR Med Inform 4(4):e41PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
Gunderman RB, Baskin MH, Brown BP (2015) When a report is both more and less than a report. J Am Coll Radiol 5(12):493–494CrossRef
31.
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (2017) Discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRef
32.
Short RG, Middleton D, Befera NT, Gondalia R, Tailor TD (2017) Patient-centered radiology reporting: using online crowdsourcing to assess the effectiveness of a web-based interactive radiology report. J Am Coll Radiol 14(11):1489–1497PubMedCrossRef
33.
Gunn AJ, Sahani DV, Bennett SE, Choy G (2013) Recent measures to improve radiology reporting: perspectives from primary care physicians. J Am Coll Radiol 10(2):122–127PubMedCrossRef
34.
Doshi AM, Somberg M, Rosenkrantz AB (2016) Factors influencing patients’ perspectives of radiology imaging centers: evaluation using an online social media ratings website. J Am Coll Radiol 13(2):210–216PubMedCrossRef
35.
Abramson EL, Patel V, Malhotra S et al (2012) Physician experiences transitioning between an older versus newer electronic health record for electronic prescribing. Int J Medical Inform 81(8):539–548CrossRef
36.
Tachakra S, Potts D, Idowu A (1990) Evaluation of a computerised system for medical records in an accident and emergency department. Int J Clin Monit Comput 7(3):187–191PubMedCrossRef
37.
Al Alawi S, Al Dhaheri A, Al Baloushi D et al (2014) Physician user satisfaction with an electronic medical records system in primary healthcare centres in Al Ain: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 4(11):e005569PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Xiong T, McEvoy K, Morton DG, Halligan S, Lilford RJ (2006) Resources and costs associated with incidental extracolonic findings from CT colonogaphy: a study in a symptomatic population. Br J Radiol 79(948):948–961PubMedCrossRef
39.
Cook TS, Oh SC, Kahn CE Jr (2017) Patients’ use and evaluation of an online system to annotate radiology reports with lay language definitions. Acad Radiol 24(9):1169–1174PubMedCrossRef
40.
Miller P, Gunderman R, Lightburn J, Miller D (2013) Enhancing patients’ experiences in radiology: through patient–radiologist interaction. Acad Radiol 20(6):778–781PubMedCrossRef
41.
Sidhu M, Strauss KJ, Connolly B et al (2010) Radiation safety in pediatric interventional radiology. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 13(3):158–166PubMedCrossRef
42.
Engel-Hills P (2006) Radiation protection in medical imaging. Radiography 12(2):153–160CrossRef
43.
Meisinger QC, Stahl CM, Andre MP, Kinney TB, Newton IG (2016) Radiation protection for the fluoroscopy operator and staff. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207(4):745–754PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Understanding patient needs and gaps in radiology reports through online discussion forum analysis
Authors
Mohammad Alarifi
Timothy Patrick
Abdulrahman Jabour
Min Wu
Jake Luo
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00930-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Insights into Imaging 1/2021 Go to the issue

Educational Review

Osteoid osteoma: the great mimicker

Original Article

Triple guidance of choledochoscopy, ultrasonography, and computed tomography facilitates percutaneous catheter drainage of infected walled-off necrosis

Original Article

Identifying lumbosacral plexus nerve root abnormalities in patients with sciatica using 3T readout-segmented echo-planar diffusion weighted MR neurography

Educational Review

A pictorial review of the utility of CEUS in thoracic biopsies

Opinion

Degenerative spine disease: Italian position paper on acquisition, interpretation and reporting of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Original Article

Bridging the divide between medical school and clinical practice: identification of six key learning outcomes for an undergraduate preparatory course in radiology