Words do matter: A systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences

Brooke Nickel, Alexandra L Barratt, Tessa Copp, Ray Moynihan, Kirsten J McCaffery

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

15 Citations (Scopus)
22 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.

DESIGN: Systematic review.

METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.

RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.

CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere014129
Pages (from-to)e014129
JournalBMJ Open
Volume7
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Jul 2017

Fingerprint

Terminology
Patient Preference
Esophageal Diseases
Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Conjunctivitis
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome
Gastroesophageal Reflux
Decision Making
Anxiety
Databases
Psychology

Cite this

Nickel, Brooke ; Barratt, Alexandra L ; Copp, Tessa ; Moynihan, Ray ; McCaffery, Kirsten J. / Words do matter : A systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences. In: BMJ Open. 2017 ; Vol. 7, No. 7. pp. e014129.
@article{702f413dd5a7427686695eccff92289e,
title = "Words do matter: A systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.",
author = "Brooke Nickel and Barratt, {Alexandra L} and Tessa Copp and Ray Moynihan and McCaffery, {Kirsten J}",
note = "{\circledC} Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.",
year = "2017",
month = "7",
day = "10",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "e014129",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

Words do matter : A systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences. / Nickel, Brooke; Barratt, Alexandra L; Copp, Tessa; Moynihan, Ray; McCaffery, Kirsten J.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 7, No. 7, e014129, 10.07.2017, p. e014129.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Words do matter

T2 - A systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences

AU - Nickel, Brooke

AU - Barratt, Alexandra L

AU - Copp, Tessa

AU - Moynihan, Ray

AU - McCaffery, Kirsten J

N1 - © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

PY - 2017/7/10

Y1 - 2017/7/10

N2 - OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.

AB - OBJECTIVES: Changing terminology for low-risk, screen-detected conditions has now been recommended by several expert groups in order to prevent overdiagnosis and reduce the associated harms of overtreatment. However, the effect of terminology on patients' preferences for management is not well understood. This review aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.DESIGN: Systematic review.METHODS: Studies were included that compared two or more terminologies to describe the same condition and measured the effect on treatment or management preferences and/or choices. Studies were identified via database searches from inception to April 2017, and from reference lists. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of studies with verification from the study team, extracted and crosschecked data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.RESULTS: Of the 1399 titles identified, seven studies, all of which included hypothetical scenarios, met the inclusion criteria. Six studies were quantitative and one was qualitative. Six of the studies were of high quality. Studies covered a diverse range of conditions: ductal carcinoma in situ (3), gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (1), conjunctivitis (1), polycystic ovary syndrome (1) and a bony fracture (1). The terminologies compared in each study varied based on the condition assessed. Based on a narrative synthesis of the data, when a more medicalised or precise term was used to describe the condition, it generally resulted in a shift in preference towards more invasive managements, and/or higher ratings of anxiety and perceived severity of the condition.CONCLUSIONS: Different terminology given for the same condition influenced management preferences and psychological outcomes in a consistent pattern in these studies. Changing the terminology may be one strategy to reduce patient preferences for aggressive management responses to low-risk conditions.TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42016035643.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85023618490&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - e014129

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 7

M1 - e014129

ER -