» Articles » PMID: 37538965

Patient Experience of Imaging Reports: A Systematic Literature Review

Overview
Journal Ultrasound
Date 2023 Aug 4
PMID 37538965
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Written reports are often the sole form of communication from diagnostic imaging. Reports are increasingly being accessed by patients through electronic records. Experiencing medical terminology can be confusing and lead to miscommunication, a decrease in involvement and increased anxiety for patients.

Methods: This systematic review was designed to include predefined study selection criteria and was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (CRD42020221734). MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus and EThOS were searched to identify articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were assessed against the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool version 2018 for quality. A segregated approach was used to synthesise data. A thematic synthesis of the qualitative data and a narrative review of the quantitative data were performed, and findings of both syntheses were then integrated.

Findings: Twelve articles reporting 13 studies were included. This review found that patients' experiences of imaging reports included positive and negative aspects. The study identified two main themes encompassing both qualitative and quantitative findings. Patients reported their experiences regarding their understanding of reports and self-management.

Discussion: Patient understanding of imaging reports is multi factorial including medical terminology, communication aids and errors. Self-management through direct access is important to patients. While receiving bad news is a concern, responsibility for accessing this is accepted.

Conclusion: A patient-centred approach to writing imaging reports may help to improve the quality of service, patient experience and wider health outcomes.

Citing Articles

Optimizing patient understanding of spine MRI reports using AI: A prospective single center study.

Encalada S, Gupta S, Hunt C, Eldrige J, Evans 2nd J, Mosquera-Moscoso J Interv Pain Med. 2025; 4(1):100550.

PMID: 40051774 PMC: 11883401. DOI: 10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100550.


Decoding Radiology Reports: Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Models Can Improve the Readability of Hand and Wrist Orthopedic Radiology Reports.

Butler J, Acosta E, Kuna M, Harrington M, Rosenbaum A, Mulligan M Hand (N Y). 2024; :15589447241267766.

PMID: 39138809 PMC: 11574816. DOI: 10.1177/15589447241267766.

References
1.
Henshaw D, Okawa G, Ching K, Garrido T, Qian H, Tsai J . Access to Radiology Reports via an Online Patient Portal: Experiences of Referring Physicians and Patients. J Am Coll Radiol. 2015; 12(6):582-6.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2015.01.015. View

2.
Tong A, Flemming K, Mcinnes E, Oliver S, Craig J . Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:181. PMC: 3552766. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181. View

3.
Rosenkrantz A, Pysarenko K . The Patient Experience in Radiology: Observations From Over 3,500 Patient Feedback Reports in a Single Institution. J Am Coll Radiol. 2016; 13(11):1371-1377. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2016.04.034. View

4.
Onder O, Yarasir Y, Azizova A, Durhan G, Onur M, Ariyurek O . Errors, discrepancies and underlying bias in radiology with case examples: a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2021; 12(1):51. PMC: 8056102. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-021-00986-8. View

5.
Martin-Carreras T, Cook T, Kahn Jr C . Readability of radiology reports: implications for patient-centered care. Clin Imaging. 2019; 54:116-120. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.12.006. View