%0 Journal Article
%@ 1438-8871
%I JMIR Publications
%V 20
%N 10
%P e11027
%T Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment
%A Scherer,Aaron M
%A Witteman,Holly O
%A Solomon,Jacob
%A Exe,Nicole L
%A Fagerlin,Angela
%A Zikmund-Fisher,Brian J
%+ Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242, United States, 1 3193356707, aaron-scherer@uiowa.edu
%K decision making, education of patients, electronic health record, computer graphics, clinical laboratory information systems
%D 2018
%7 19.10.2018
%9 Original Paper
%J J Med Internet Res
%G English
%X 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. 
%M 30341053
%R 10.2196/11027
%U http://www.jmir.org/2018/10/e11027/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/11027
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30341053