A Multidisciplinary Approach to Designing and Evaluating Electronic Medical Record Portal Messages that Support Patient Self-Care.
J Biomed Inform. 2017 Mar 24;:
Authors: Morrow D, Hasegawa-Johnson M, Huang T, Schuh W, Azevedo RF, Gu K, Zhang Y, Roy B, Garcia-Retamero R
We describe a project intended to improve the use of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) patient portal information by older adults with diverse numeracy and literacy abilities, so that portals can better support patient-centered care. Patient portals are intended to bridge patients and providers by ensuring patients have continuous access to their health information and services. However, they are underutilized, especially by older adults with low health literacy, because they often function more as information repositories than as tools to engage patients. We outline an interdisciplinary approach to designing and evaluating portal-based messages that convey clinical test results so as to support patient-centered care. We first describe a theory-based framework for designing effective messages for patients. This involves analyzing shortcomings of the standard portal message format (presenting numerical test results with little context to guide comprehension) and developing verbally, graphically, video- and computer agent-based formats that enhance context. The framework encompasses theories from cognitive and behavioral science (health literacy, fuzzy trace memory, behavior change) as well as computational/engineering approaches (e.g., image and speech processing models). We then describe an approach to evaluating whether the formats improve comprehension of and responses to the messages about test results, focusing on our methods. The approach combines quantitative (e.g., response accuracy, Likert scale responses) and qualitative (interview) measures, as well as experimental and individual difference methods in order to investigate which formats are more effective, and whether some formats benefit some types of patients more than others. We also report the results of two pilot studies conducted as part of developing the message formats.
PMID: 28347856 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
NegAIT: A New Parser for Medical Text Simplification Using Morphological, Sentential and Double Negation.
J Biomed Inform. 2017 Mar 22;:
Authors: Mukherjee P, Leroy G, Kauchak D, Rajanarayanan S, Romero Diaz DY, Yuan NP, Gail Pritchard T, Colina S
Many different text features influence text readability and content comprehension. Negation is commonly suggested as one such feature, but few general-purpose tools exist to discover negation and studies of the impact of negation on text readability are rare. In this paper, we introduce a new negation parser (NegAIT) for detecting morphological, sentential, and double negation. We evaluated the parser using a human annotated gold standard containing 500 Wikipedia sentences and achieved 95%, 89% and 67% precision with 100%, 80%, and 67% recall, respectively. We also investigate two applications of this new negation parser. First, we performed a corpus statistics study to demonstrate different negation usage in easy and difficult text. Negation usage was compared in six corpora: patient blogs (4K sentences), Cochrane reviews (91K sentences), PubMed abstracts (20K sentences), clinical trial texts (48K sentences), and English and Simple English Wikipedia articles for different medical topics (60K and 6K sentences). The most difficult text contained the least negation. However, when comparing negation types, difficult texts (i.e., Cochrane, PubMed, English Wikipedia and clinical trials) contained significantly (p<.01) more morphological negations. Second, we conducted a predictive analytics study to show the importance of negation in distinguishing between easy and difficulty text. Five binary classifiers (Naïve Bayes, SVM, decision tree, logistic regression and linear regression) were trained using only negation information. All classifiers achieved better performance than the majority baseline. The Naïve Bayes' classifier achieved the highest accuracy at 77% (9% higher than the majority baseline).
PMID: 28342946 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]