Format

Send to

Choose Destination
BMJ Open. 2017 Jul 10;7(7):e014129. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129.

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

Author information

1
Wiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
2
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

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.

KEYWORDS:

decision making; management preferences; overtreatment; terminology; treatment preferences

PMID:
28698318
PMCID:
PMC5541578
DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014129
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; AB and RM are co-chairs of the steering group for the Preventing Overdiagnosis scientific conferences; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center