Original article
Readability of urologic pathology reports: The need for patient-centered approaches

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction

The pathology report informs a patient׳s prognosis and treatment options. However, pathology reports are written using complex medical vocabulary. We evaluated the readability of pathology reports for common urologic cancers (prostate, bladder kidney, and testicular) to identify sources of confusion that could be addressed through modified patient-centered pathology reports.

Methods

Pathology reports from 5 cases of each of the following procedures were analyzed: partial nephrectomy, radical nephrectomy, radical prostatectomy, ultrasound-guided prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, radical orchiectomy, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. Reports were edited for grammar and syntax, and the Flesch-Kincaid readability software calculated the reading level. Modifications were performed to identify sources of obstruction to readability. We compared modified and base reports using independent samples t tests.

Results

Bladder cancer pathology had the highest readability index; radical prostatectomy and PNBx pathology reports had the lowest average readability indices. Modified reports that both omitted gross pathologic and immunohistochemistry content and also replaced oncologic and histology terms with lay terminology had significantly lower reading levels than base reports (P<0.05 for radical nephrectomy, partial nephrectomy, and radical orchiectomy). Modified reports did not significantly alter the reading level for radical cystectomy, transurethral resection of bladder tumor, PNBx, and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection reports.

Conclusions

Pathology reports are written at reading levels above the average reading capability of most Americans. Deleting descriptive pathologic terms and replacing complex medical terminology with lay terms resulted in improved readability for some urologic oncology reports but complicated readability for others. Our findings may guide the development of patient-centered pathology reports.

Introduction

In 2003, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy found that approximately 30 million adults were functionally illiterate, and 36% of adults had basic or below basic health literacy [1]. Individuals of lower socioeconomic status, the elderly, and the racial minorities are more likely to have low health literacy [1]. Considering the state of health illiteracy in the United States, it is likely that cancer-related educational material is above the level of comprehension for most patients. In one review of available resources on the Internet, the average reading level of material on more than 100 websites was ninth grade or higher, and many English-language sites typically require at least a high school graduate reading ability [2]. Websites for common cancers, including prostate cancer, typically require a college-level reading ability [3]. Quality-of-life questionnaires and patient information booklets have yielded similar findings [4]. As a result, many patients and their families have difficulty finding reliable and comprehensible information regarding their cancer diagnosis.

For those affected by cancer, the pathology report can inform a patient׳s diagnosis, treatment options, and prognosis. However, pathology reports are written with complex medical vocabulary. Furthermore, these reports do not intend the patient to be a target audience [5]. Patients often seek information to better understand their cancer diagnosis, and with the increasing use of computerized medical records, patient access to their medical records, including pathology reports, is commonplace [6]. Yet, medical vocabulary used in pathology may make it impossible for the patient to understand the report [7]. Clear communication of the information in a pathology report is important for patient-centered care. Patient-centered communication has been associated with positive health outcomes including improved patient satisfaction, improved psychological health, and greater comprehension [8], and is a research priority of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [9].

To address this deficiency in patient-centered outcomes research, we tested the readability of pathology reports for the most common urologic cancers: prostate cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, and testicular cancer. These cancers are among the most prevalent in the United States, and for each cancer, the pathology report directs treatment and prognosis. We further assessed sources of obstruction to readability by removing gross descriptions and immunohistochemistry descriptions, and replacing complex pathology terms with less complex synonyms to create modified pathology reports. These results may inform the development of patient-centered pathology reports that may be added to standard pathology reports to improve patient comprehension.

Section snippets

Methods

Institutional review board approval was obtained through the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and University of Washington Cancer Consortium. The pathology reports from 5 cases each of partial nephrectomy (PN), radical nephrectomy (RN), prostate needle biopsy (PNBx), radical prostatectomy (RP), transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT), radical cystectomy (RC), radical orchiectomy (RO), and retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) specimens were obtained. The text from each

Results

The average RI for each pathology report is listed in the Table. TURBT and RC specimens had the highest RIs measured at 12. RP and PNBx reports had the lowest RIs at 10.5 and 10.3, respectively. RO and RPLND reports were measured to have higher readability levels (11.5 and 11.8, respectively) than partial and RN reports (10.9 and 10.8, respectively).

Modifications to the original pathology report decreased the RI of RN, PN, RP, and RO reports significantly (P<0.05). Despite modifications, the RI

Discussion

In this study, we demonstrate that the average reading level for urologic pathology reports is well above the reading level of the average American. For all of the reports studied, no report had a readability score lower than 10.3, corresponding to a 10th grade reading level. This finding indicates that many patients may not be equipped to understand the information in a pathology report. In 2003, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy reported that nearly 30 million adults were functionally

Conclusions

We demonstrate that the average readability of urologic oncology pathology reports is beyond the average American reading level. Modifications to pathology reports may improve readability; however, generation of comprehensible pathology reports may require a dedicated patient-partnered research process, as simple exclusion of gross specimen and immunohistochemistry data does not uniformly improve the reports׳ reading grade level. Patient-centered presentations of health information will likely

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (18)

  • Patient comprehension of breast pathology report terminology: The need for patient-centered resources

    2022, Surgery (United States)
    Citation Excerpt :

    However, now that results are mandated to be released immediately, patients may be able to access these sensitive results even before their provider has reviewed the report. This presents a significant issue as pathology and radiology reports are written with the clinician—not the patient—as the intended audience and contain complex medical terminology well above the average patient reading level.8 When queried on their attitudes regarding patients receiving and reading their results reports, providers consistently expressed that “releasing information to patients immediately would be more confusing than helpful.”9

  • The impact of curated educational videos on pathology health literacy for patients with a pancreatic, colorectal, or prostate cancer diagnosis

    2022, Academic Pathology
    Citation Excerpt :

    This concern is supported by current data: though the AMA recommends that written health materials not exceed a middle school reading level.8 One study found that many urologic pathology reports are written at an upper high school level.8,9 This implication is especially problematic considering many adults in the United States have limited literacy levels and that average health literacy may be even lower in vulnerable groups such as the impoverished.8,10

  • A “pathology explanation clinic (PEC)” for patient-centered laboratory medicine test results

    2018, Academic Pathology
    Citation Excerpt :

    With respect to the question of sharing laboratory reports directly with patients, in studying patients’ personal understanding of their surgical pathology reports, Mossanen et al showed that “pathology reports are written at reading levels above the average reading capability of most Americans.”15( p1091) They found that “deleting descriptive pathologic terms and replacing complex medical terminology with lay terms resulted in improved readability for some urologic oncology reports but complicated the readability for others.”15(p1091) Another report by the same group was aimed at reworking urinary bladder surgical pathology reports so that patients could better understand them.

  • An online readability analysis of pathology-related patient education articles: an opportunity for pathologists to educate patients

    2017, Human Pathology
    Citation Excerpt :

    As such, physicians and health care providers should understand the importance of online patient educational materials being easily comprehendible. With the advent of the Affordable Care Act and increasingly widespread access to the Internet, patients today can readily obtain their personal medical records online, including their pathology reports [16]. With the vast amounts of pathology resources available online, patients today may be more inclined than ever before to access the Internet to better understand pathology terms and procedures that they view in their pathology reports.

View all citing articles on Scopus

Funding: an award from the Arnold P. Gold Foundation funded this study.

View full text