ArticleHealth policy and technology2024
Individual Factors That Affect Laypeople's Understanding of Definitions of Medical Jargon.
Article in Health policy and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Patients have difficulty understanding medical jargon in electronic health record (EHR) notes. Lay definitions can improve patient comprehension, which is the goal of the NoteAid project. We assess whether the NoteAid definitions are understandable to laypeople and whether understandability differs with respect to layperson characteristics. Methods: Definitions for jargon terms were written for laypersons with a 4th-to-7th-grade reading level. 300 definitions were randomly sampled from a corpus of approximately 30,000 definitions. 280 laypeople (crowdsource workers) were recruited; each layperson rated the understandability of 20 definitions. Understandability was rated on a 5-point scale. Using a generalized estimating equation model (GEE) we analyzed the relationship between understandability and age, sex, race/ethnicity, education level, native language, health literacy, and definition writer. Results: Overall, 81.1% (95% CI: 76.5-85.7%) of the laypeople reported that the definitions were understandable. Males were less likely to report understanding the definitions than females (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.63-0.84). Asians, Hispanics, and those who marked their race/ethnicity as "other" were more likely to report understanding the definitions than whites (Asians: OR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.17-1.73; Hispanics: OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.33-2.59; Other: OR: 2.48, 95% CI: 1.65-3.74). Laypeople whose native language was not English were less likely to report understanding the definitions (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.36-0.74). Laypeople with lower health literacy were less likely to report understanding definitions (health literacy score 3: OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.43-0.62; health literacy score 4: OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.29-0.55). Conclusion: Understandability of definitions among laypeople was high. There were statistically significant race/ethnic differences in self-reported understandability, even after controlling for multiple demographics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.