Family Practice Vol. 20, No. 3, 248-253
© Oxford University Press 2003
Communication |
What’s in a name? An experimental study of patients’ views of the impact and function of a diagnosis
Department of General Practice, Guys Kings and St Thomas’s School of Medicine, Kings College London, London, UK.
Correspondence to Jane Ogden, Department of General Practice, GKT, 5 Lambeth Walk, London SE11 6SP, UK; E-mail: Jane.Ogden{at}kcl.ac.uk
Objective. The aim of the present study was to examine patients’ views about the relative impact and function of lay and medical diagnoses for stomach and throat problems.
Methods. A questionnaire survey was carried out among 900 consecutive patients attending nine general practices across England. A total of 740 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 82.2%). Each participant rated a series of statements describing the impact upon the patient and the function for the doctor following both a stomach and a throat problem case scenario involving either a lay (stomach upset/sore throat) or medical (gastroenteritis/tonsillitis) label.
Results. The results showed consistent differences between the lay and medical labels for both stomach and throat problems in terms of their impact upon the patient and their function for the doctor. In particular, the medical labels were rated as beneficial for the patient in terms of validating the sick role and improving their confidence in the doctor. In contrast, the lay labels resulted in a greater sense of ownership of the problem which could be associated with unwanted responsibility and blame. In addition, the medical labels were seen to provide the doctor with a greater sense of professionalism, as giving them a clearer role in the consultation and to imply less blame on the part of the patient. ‘Stomach upset’ was also seen as a more pragmatic label than ‘gastroenteritis’.
Conclusion. Although much current prescriptive literature in general practice advocates the use of lay language in the consultation as a means to promote better doctor–patient partnerships, the issue of diagnosis is more complex than this. Patients attribute greater benefits to the use of medical labels for themselves and state that such medical labels are of greater benefit to the doctor.
Keywords. Diagnosis, doctor, patient communication, general practice, language.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. Keselman, C. A. Smith, G. Divita, H. Kim, A. C. Browne, G. Leroy, and Q. Zeng-Treitler Consumer Health Concepts That Do Not Map to the UMLS: Where Do They Fit? J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2008; 15(4): 496 - 505. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. Zeng-Treitler, S. Goryachev, T. Tse, A. Keselman, and A. Boxwala Estimating Consumer Familiarity with Health Terminology: A Context-based Approach J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., May 1, 2008; 15(3): 349 - 356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. T. Zeng and T. Tse Exploring and Developing Consumer Health Vocabularies J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., January 1, 2006; 13(1): 24 - 29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Williams and J. Ogden The impact of matching the patient's vocabulary: a randomized control trial Fam. Pract., December 1, 2004; 21(6): 630 - 635. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Dobson Patients prefer "medical labels" to lay language, study finds BMJ, May 22, 2003; 326(7399): 1105 - 1105. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|