Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings

A qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges

Caitlin E. Rancher, Jody M. Shoemaker, Linda E. Petree, Mark Holdsworth, John P. Phillips, Deborah Helitzer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF. Methods: We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined. Results: Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings. Conclusions: The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-10
Number of pages10
JournalBMC Medical Ethics
Volume17
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 11 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Literacy
Incidental Findings
Radiology
Neuroimaging
literacy
Focus Groups
health
Research Personnel
Delivery of Health Care
Research
Language
Research Ethics Committees
Group
Parents
language
Physicians
medical care
coding
parents
stakeholder

Keywords

  • Health literacy
  • Incidental findings
  • Neuroimaging

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings : A qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges. / Rancher, Caitlin E.; Shoemaker, Jody M.; Petree, Linda E.; Holdsworth, Mark; Phillips, John P.; Helitzer, Deborah.

In: BMC Medical Ethics, Vol. 17, No. 1, 11.10.2016, p. 1-10.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rancher, Caitlin E. ; Shoemaker, Jody M. ; Petree, Linda E. ; Holdsworth, Mark ; Phillips, John P. ; Helitzer, Deborah. / Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings : A qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges. In: BMC Medical Ethics. 2016 ; Vol. 17, No. 1. pp. 1-10.
@article{c0958d0cdd6f4446b7cbf397a5ebbd7e,
title = "Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings: A qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges",
abstract = "Background: Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF. Methods: We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined. Results: Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 {\%} did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings. Conclusions: The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.",
keywords = "Health literacy, Incidental findings, Neuroimaging",
author = "Rancher, {Caitlin E.} and Shoemaker, {Jody M.} and Petree, {Linda E.} and Mark Holdsworth and Phillips, {John P.} and Deborah Helitzer",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "11",
doi = "10.1186/s12910-016-0141-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "17",
pages = "1--10",
journal = "BMC Medical Ethics",
issn = "1472-6939",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disclosing neuroimaging incidental findings

T2 - A qualitative thematic analysis of health literacy challenges

AU - Rancher, Caitlin E.

AU - Shoemaker, Jody M.

AU - Petree, Linda E.

AU - Holdsworth, Mark

AU - Phillips, John P.

AU - Helitzer, Deborah

PY - 2016/10/11

Y1 - 2016/10/11

N2 - Background: Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF. Methods: We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined. Results: Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings. Conclusions: The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

AB - Background: Returning neuroimaging incidental findings (IF) may create a challenge to research participants' health literacy skills as they must interpret and make appropriate healthcare decisions based on complex radiology jargon. Disclosing IF can therefore present difficulties for participants, research institutions and the healthcare system. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of the health literacy challenges encountered when returning neuroimaging IF. We report on findings from a retrospective survey and focus group sessions with major stakeholders involved in disclosing IF. Methods: We surveyed participants who had received a radiology report from a research study and conducted focus groups with participants, parents of child participants, Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, investigators and physicians. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted using standard group-coding procedures and descriptive summaries of health literacy scores and radiology report outcomes are examined. Results: Although participants reported high health literacy skills (m = 87.3 on a scale of 1-100), 67 % did not seek medical care when recommended to do so; and many participants in the focus groups disclosed they could not understand the findings described in their report. Despite their lack of understanding, participants desire to have information about their radiology results, and the investigators feel ethically inclined to return findings. Conclusions: The language in clinically useful radiology reports can create a challenge for participants' health literacy skills and has the potential to negatively impact the healthcare system and investigators conducting imaging research. Radiology reports need accompanying resources that explain findings in lay language, which can help reduce the challenge caused by the need to communicate incidental findings.

KW - Health literacy

KW - Incidental findings

KW - Neuroimaging

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84991101849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84991101849&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12910-016-0141-1

DO - 10.1186/s12910-016-0141-1

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - BMC Medical Ethics

JF - BMC Medical Ethics

SN - 1472-6939

IS - 1

ER -