• 13Jul

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

    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, published in the BMJ Open, aims to synthesise existing studies on terminology and its impact on management decision making.

    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.

    The study concluded that 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.http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/7/7/e014129


    Nickel
     B
    Barratt ACopp T
    , et al
    Words do matter: a systematic review on how different terminology for the same condition influences management preferences