Laboratory Literacy: Surveying Lab Result Interpretations of a Local Patient Population

Jordan Franco, University of Vermont Larner College of MedicineFollow
Mark K. Fung, University of Vermont Larner College of MedicineFollow

Abstract

A patient's independent interpretation of their medical laboratory data has become an unspoken prerequisite in the current age of medicine. In the outpatient setting, it is anecdotally commonplace for patients to receive their lab results before their physicians, resulting in patients often relying on self-interpretations of their results. This study analyzed the degree to which patients are comfortable interpreting lab results and sought to shed light on the question: How are patients interpreting their laboratory reports? A survey was constructed to include the items from a validated health literacy screening tool, followed by items inquiring about the respondent's experience and comfort interpreting medical lab reports. The survey then contained five sets of two questions, each asking the respondent to interpret a mock-up laboratory report associated with a disease state and to report their level of confidence in their answer. The survey was distributed to 173 patient advisors, of which 61 completed the survey. There was a statistically significant association between one's health literacy and one's confidence in interpreting lab results (p < 0.001). Additionally, respondents with a chronic disease were more confident in interpreting a within-range HbA1c compared to respondents without chronic disease (p < 0.05), although similar comparisons for other lab result types failed to yield statistically significant differences. This study detailed the lessons learned in conducting a health and laboratory literacy survey, a preliminary step towards developing a working knowledge of how patients relate to their lab results.

Recommended Citation

Franco J, Fung MK. Laboratory Literacy: Surveying Lab Result Interpretations of a Local Patient Population. Patient Experience Journal. 2024; 11(3):145-156. doi: 10.35680/2372-0247.1966.