Lay understanding of common medical terminology in oncology

Objective The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend an earlier study carried out in the UK of lay understanding of cancer‐related terms in a Dutch sample, by (i) examining understanding of common terms relating to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment and (ii) experimentally exploring the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Psycho-oncology (Chichester, England) England), 2013-05, Vol.22 (5), p.1186-1191
Main Authors: Pieterse, Arwen H., Jager, Nienke A., Smets, Ellen M.A., Henselmans, Inge
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Cancer
Comprehension
Consultation
Decision making
Efficacy
Female
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
health literacy
Humans
Lay people
Male
Medical diagnosis
Medical Oncology
Medical treatment
Neoplasms - psychology
Netherlands - epidemiology
Oncologists
Oncology
patient participation
shared decision making
Surveys and Questionnaires
Terminology as Topic
Trust
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objective The purpose of this study was to replicate and extend an earlier study carried out in the UK of lay understanding of cancer‐related terms in a Dutch sample, by (i) examining understanding of common terms relating to diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment and (ii) experimentally exploring the effect of medical jargon versus plain language use on individuals' perceived efficacy in interacting with oncologists, participating in medical decision making, and interpersonal trust. Methods One hundred ninety‐four lay people completed a questionnaire assessing (i) understanding, confidence in understanding, and worry after reading 10 scenarios presenting cancer‐related terms and (ii) perceived communication efficacy, decision‐making efficacy, and trust following a vignette portraying an oncologist using either jargon or plain language. Results On average, participants understood a majority (6.8 ± 1.6) of cancer‐related terms, yet only 2.2% understood all 10 terms correctly. Compared with incorrect understanding, correct understanding was generally related to higher confidence in understanding and to worry levels that better matched the scenarios. Language complexity did not significantly affect measures of perceived efficacy or trust. Overall confidence in understanding was significantly related to measures of perceived efficacy (p 
ISSN:1057-9249
1099-1611
DOI:10.1002/pon.3096