@Article{info:doi/10.2196/11027,
author="Scherer, Aaron M
and Witteman, Holly O
and Solomon, Jacob
and Exe, Nicole L
and Fagerlin, Angela
and Zikmund-Fisher, Brian J",
title="Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment",
journal="J Med Internet Res",
year="2018",
month="Oct",
day="19",
volume="20",
number="10",
pages="e11027",
keywords="decision making, education of patients, electronic health record, computer graphics, clinical laboratory information systems",
abstract="Background: Most displays of laboratory test results include a standard reference range. For some patients (eg, those with chronic conditions), however, getting a result within the standard range may be unachievable, inappropriate, or even harmful. Objective: The objective of our study was to test the impact of including clinically appropriate goal ranges outside the standard range in the visual displays of laboratory test results. Methods: Participants (N=6776) from a demographically diverse Web-based panel viewed hypothetical glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) test results (HbA1c either 6.2{\%} or 8.2{\%}) as part of a type 2 diabetes management scenario. Test result visual displays included either a standard range (4.5{\%}-5.7{\%}) only, a goal range (6.5{\%}-7.5{\%}) added to the standard range, or the goal range only. The results were displayed in 1 of the following 3 display formats: (1) a table; (2) a simple, two-colored number line (simple line); or (3) a number line with diagnostic categories indicated via colored blocks (block line). Primary outcome measures were comprehension of and negative reactions to test results. Results: While goal range information did not influence the understanding of HbA1c=8.2{\%} results, the goal range only display produced higher levels of comprehension and decreased negative reactions to HbA1c=6.2{\%} test results compared with the no goal range and goal range added conditions. Goal range information was less helpful in the block line condition versus the other formats. Conclusions: Replacing the standard range with a clinically appropriate goal range could help patients better understand how their test results relate to their personal targets. ",
issn="1438-8871",
doi="10.2196/11027",
url="http://www.jmir.org/2018/10/e11027/",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/11027",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30341053"
}