Abstract
This randomized clinical trial compares patient comprehension of electronic health records in the US when common medical abbreviations are expanded.
Introduction
In 2020, an estimated 100 million US residents accessed their health records online.1 That number likely increased beginning April 2021, when US federal rules implemented the 21st Century Cures Act requiring electronic health information to be made freely accessible.2 Unfortunately, medical abbreviations and acronyms often limit patient understanding of health records. Automated expansion is one potential solution; however, it is unclear whether the magnitude of its effect is sufficiently large to justify costly implementation at scale. In this prospective, 2-arm, parallel, individually randomized clinical trial at 3 US hospitals in metropolitan areas, we estimated how much expansion increases patient comprehension of 10 common abbreviations in their health records.
Methods
This trial used a purposive sample representative on age, gender, and race that was enrolled between February 2020 and August 2021 (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05297942) (trial protocol and statistical analysis plan in Supplement 1). To isolate the main effect, we included only English-speaking adult patients with diagnosed heart failure. The Weill Cornell Medicine institutional review board approved the study and all participants provided written informed consent. This trial followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Extension (CONSORT Extension) reporting guideline (eFigure in Supplement 2).
Participants were individually randomized to read clinical text with abbreviations (control group, 30 participants) or with expansions (intervention group, 30 participants). The abbreviations and expansions included were hrs (hours), MD (medical doctor), BP (blood pressure), ED (emergency department), yo (year old), pt (patient), HF (heart failure), hx (history), HTN (hypertension), and MI (myocardial infarction). We included abbreviations and expansions of varied difficulty as rated by clinicians (data available upon request).
The primary outcome was overall comprehension, assessed using the International Organization for Standardization Method for Testing Comprehension (ISO 9186),3,4 and defined as the summary (ie, count) score of the total number of abbreviated or expanded terms comprehended. Baseline demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, and health literacy scores5 were collected. Race and ethnicity was self-reported and collected for purposive sampling. For the primary outcome, P < .05 in 2-sided tests was considered significant.
Results
Sixty randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 66 [16] years; 18 [30%] women) completed the trial and were included in the analysis (Table 1). Overall comprehension scores were significantly greater among patients in the intervention group who received expansions than among patients in the control group who received abbreviations (95% vs 62%, respectively; comprehension score, 9.5/10 [95% CI, 9.3 to 9.7] vs 6.2/10 [95% CI, 5.3 to 7.0]; P < .001).
Table 1. Participant Characteristics.
| Variable | Participants, No. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall (N = 60) | By group | ||
| Abbreviations (n = 30) | Expansions (n = 30) | ||
| Demographics | |||
| Age, mean (SD), y | 66 (16) | 67 (15) | 65 (18) |
| Gender | |||
| Men | 42 (70) | 22 (73) | 20 (67) |
| Women | 18 (30) | 8 (27) | 10 (33) |
| Nonbinary | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Race | |||
| Asian | 2 (3) | 2 (7) | 0 |
| Black | 12 (20) | 3 (10) | 9 (30) |
| White | 41 (68) | 21 (70) | 20 (67) |
| Mixed | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Native American | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Prefer not to answer | 3 (5) | 2 (7) | 1 (3) |
| Ethnicity | |||
| Hispanic/Latinx | 7 (12) | 6 (20) | 1 (3) |
| Not Hispanic/Latinx | 48 (80) | 20 (67) | 28 (93) |
| Prefer not to answer | 5 (8) | 4 (13) | 1 (3) |
| Socioeconomic status | |||
| Education | |||
| High school graduate or less | 11 (18) | 5 (17) | 6 (20) |
| Some college or associate’s degree | 13 (22) | 7 (23) | 6 (20) |
| Bachelor’s degree | 18 (30) | 12 (40) | 6 (20) |
| Graduate degree | 18 (30) | 6 (20) | 12 (40) |
| Financial resourcesa | |||
| Not enough | 17 (28) | 6 (20) | 11 (37) |
| Enough | 31 (52) | 17 (57) | 14 (47) |
| More than enough | 12 (20) | 7 (23) | 5 (17) |
| Insurance status | |||
| Employer-sponsored | 13 (22) | 6 (20) | 7 (23) |
| Public (Medicare or Medicaid) | 45 (75) | 23 (77) | 22 (73) |
| Self-purchased | 1 (2) | 1 (3) | 0 |
| Other | 1 (2) | 0 | 1 (3) |
| Disability status | |||
| Physical disability | 13 (22) | 6 (20) | 7 (23) |
| Vision or hearing disability | 7 (12) | 3 (10) | 4 (13) |
| Other disability | 14 (23) | 9 (30) | 5 (17) |
| No disability | 26 (43) | 12 (40) | 14 (47) |
| Health literacy | |||
| Health literacy score | |||
| Adequate | 35 (58) | 16 (53) | 19 (63) |
| Inadequate | 25 (42) | 14 (47) | 11 (37) |
Self-reported selection.
Significant differences in comprehension were observed only for moderately difficult terms such as HTN (hypertension) (Table 2). In a subgroup analysis of control participants, only inadequate health literacy was significantly associated with comprehension of fewer abbreviations (adjusted risk ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.98; P = .04).
Table 2. Comprehension Differences Between Abbreviated and Expanded Terms.
| Abbreviation | Comprehension, percentage score (95% CI) | Expansion | Comprehension, percentage score (95% CI) | P value, adjusted |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| hrs | 93 (84-100) | hours | 100 (100-100) | >.99 |
| MD | 93 (84-100) | medical doctor | 100 (100-100) | >.99 |
| BP | 83 (69-97) | blood pressure | 100 (100-100) | .23 |
| ED | 67 (49-85) | emergency department | 100 (100-100) | .007 |
| yo | 90 (79-100) | year old | 100 (100-100) | .83 |
| pt | 67 (49-85) | patient | 100 (100-100) | .007 |
| HF | 20 (5-35) | heart failure | 100 (100-100) | <.001a |
| hx | 43 (25-62) | history | 100 (100-100) | <.001a |
| HTN | 23 (7-39) | hypertension | 97 (90-100) | <.001a |
| MI | 37 (18-55) | myocardial infarction | 53 (34-72) | >.99 |
Significant at an adjusted P value of .005.
Discussion
Expansion of 10 common medical abbreviations compared with no expansion significantly increased overall comprehension of the abbreviations from 62% to 95%. These findings suggest that post hoc or automated expansion of medical abbreviations and acronyms can improve patient understanding of their health information, and may benefit ongoing national efforts to provide patients with electronic access to their own documentation.
Even in this population with substantial prior exposure to the health care system, comprehension of common abbreviations such as MI or HTN remained below 40%, much lower than clinicians initially estimated. Clinicians should be mindful that patient comprehension of abbreviations may be much lower than expected.6 Additionally, our data suggest that expansion is an efficacious standalone solution only for certain abbreviations and acronyms. Abbreviations with well-understood meanings while abbreviated (eg, hrs, MD) and poorly understood meanings while expanded (eg, myocardial infarction) did not benefit significantly from the intervention.
This study had several limitations. Ethnicity was imbalanced between study groups by chance; however, sensitivity analyses using multivariable models that controlled for study group and ethnicity demonstrated the imbalance did not affect our conclusions. We restricted our sample to 1 disease condition, which was necessary to isolate the main effect. Results may not generalize to other populations.
Trial Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
eFigure. CONSORT Flow Diagram
Data Sharing Statement
References
- 1.Johnson C, Patel V. The Current State of Patients’ Access and Use of their Electronic Health Information. Paper presented at: 2020 ONC Annual Meeting; January 27, 2020. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.healthit.gov/sites/default/files/page/2020-03/TheCurrentStateofPatientAccess.pdf
- 2.US Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; US Department of Health and Human Services . Information Blocking and the ONC Health IT Certification Program: Extension of Compliance Dates and Timeframes in Response to the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency. Published online November 4, 2020. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/04/2020-24376/information-blocking-and-the-onc-health-it-certification-program-extension-of-compliance-dates-and
- 3.International Organization for Standardization . International Standard ISO 9186-1:2014(E)— Part 1: Methods for Testing Comprehensibility. International Organization for Standardization; 2014. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Arcia A, Grossman LV, George M, Reading Turchioe M, Mangal S, Masterson Creber RM. Modifications to the ISO 9186 Method for Testing Comprehension: Successes and Lessons Learned. 2019 IEEE Workshop on Visual Analytics Healthcare. Posted online December 30, 2019. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8945036
- 5.Chew LD, Bradley KA, Boyko EJ. Brief questions to identify patients with inadequate health literacy. Fam Med. 2004;36(8):588-594. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Miller AN, Bharathan A, Duvuuri VNS, Navas V, Luceno L, Zraick R, Atmakuri S, Schmidt-Owens M, Deichen M, Ayers T, Thrash K. Use of seven types of medical jargon by male and female primary care providers at a university health center. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;S0738-3991(21):00562-0. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.08.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Trial Protocol and Statistical Analysis Plan
eFigure. CONSORT Flow Diagram
Data Sharing Statement