ArticleACI open2025
Patient's Information Needs and Understanding When Reading Anatomic Pathology Reports in Patient Portals.
Article in ACI open, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To improve our understanding of the information needs of patients/caregivers when accessing anatomic pathology reports (APRs) via the patient portals (PPs) without further clarification by a clinician and to evaluate their opinion toward accessing APRs through a PP. Materials and Methods: We conducted an exploratory mixed-method study using a questionnaire and a think-aloud protocol based on three mock APRs of gastrointestinal specimens. Participants verbalized the cognitive processes used to understand report content, discussed concerns/questions, underlined all unknown terms/phrases, and summarized each APR in their own words. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was performed. APR summaries and term descriptions were assessed for accuracy. Finally, the underlined terms/phrases were grouped to create an ontology. Results: All participants ( Conclusion: This study's findings suggest that patients, regardless of the diagnosis, have difficulties in understanding APRs, mainly due to complex medical terminology. Providing access to APRs via PPs alone is not sufficient to improve patient understanding. Further research is necessary to develop effective solutions that improve patients' understanding of these documents.
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.