Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Helen Nankervis; Alyson L Huntley; Penny Whiting; William Hamilton; Hardeep Singh; Sarah Dawson; Rachel O’Donnell; Jane Sprackman; Anna Ferguson Montague; Jessica Watson

doi:10.3399/BJGP.2024.0338

Abstract

Background Online records access, including test results, was rolled out as part of changes to the GP contract in England in 2023. Blood test result communication is important for patient-centred care, patient safety, and primary care workload. Evidence is needed to ensure that test results are communicated safely and efficiently to patients in primary care.

Aim To summarise existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers and their patients and carers.

Design and setting A mixed-methods systematic review was undertaken.

Method MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2013–September 2023. Qualitative or quantitative studies that provided information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff to adult patients and carers were eligible for inclusion.

Results There were 71 included studies, including 10 experimental studies and no randomised controlled trials. Study quality was mostly poor and risk of bias was high, partly owing to a lack of reported information. The studies found that patients want more information about their blood test results, particularly in terms of ‘what next’, and prefer results to be provided quickly. Electronic methods, such as online access or text messages, were generally well accepted but not by everyone, and not for all results. Clinicians’ opinions were mixed as to whether online direct release of test results to patients was beneficial or could cause problems, such as increased patient anxiety and increased workload.

Conclusion A range of evidence has been identified on patient and clinician preferences, and barriers and facilitators to test communication, which is particularly important in the current NHS context of a move towards patient online access.

Introduction

Around 14 tests are conducted per person in England and Wales annually.¹ Evidence is needed to ensure that these results are communicated safely and efficiently to patients in primary care. Research to improve blood test communication is highly topical; since November 2023 all general practices in England have been required to provide adult patients with access to their full primary care record, including blood test results, through online accounts such as the NHS App.² NHS case studies have suggested that improving online access to blood test results could reduce telephone calls to general practices to discuss results.³ However, the opposite is also possible, with primary care staff reporting concerns that viewing results online could lead to an increase in patient queries.⁴ The James Lind Alliance identified the need to provide information in patient medical records in a way that improves safety and quality of care as a priority.⁵ However, currently it is unclear how test results viewed in the medical record via the NHS App are perceived by patients. Moreover, not all patients will be able to access their test results online, so it is important to understand the evidence around alternative methods of test communication including telephone, face to face, and text message.

Test result communication is also important for patient safety, as communication may include instructions for repeating the test, follow-up tests or procedures, or starting treatment. The World Health Organization has identified that test result follow-up rates are suboptimal, leading to serious lapses in care.⁶ Studies quantifying failures in test result follow-up have been systematically reviewed, with between 6.8% and 61.9% of laboratory tests reportedly not followed up in US settings, with no relevant UK research identified.⁷

Safe and efficient systems for test result communication are therefore important for primary care workload, patient safety, and patient-centred care. The aim of this study was to summarise existing evidence for blood test result communication between primary care providers (for example, GPs, nurses, reception staff) and their patients and carers. The objectives were to review the benefits and potential harms of interventions, the needs and preferences of patients, clinicians, and healthcare staff, and the barriers and facilitators to blood test result communication.

Communication of test result is important for patient safety, patient-centred care, and clinician workload. This systematic review included 71 studies of test communication in primary care — 41 quantitative, 19 qualitative, and 11 mixed-methods studies — with no randomised controlled trials identified. Patients want more information about their test results, particularly in terms of ‘what next’. Online access to test results is generally well accepted by patients, but reliance on electronic communication methods alone is not sufficient to meet the needs of different patients and different types of test result.

How this fits in

Method

The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (registration number CRD42023427433) and published.⁸ The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.⁹

Search strategy

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2013–September 2023, combining terms for communication (including ‘provider’, ‘nurse’, ‘doctor’, ‘communicat*’), patient access to records (including ‘access’, ‘patient’, ‘consumer’, ‘record[s]’), and test results (including ‘blood’ test[s]’, ‘result[s]’). Grey literature was also searched, including NHS websites, the reference lists of eligible full texts were hand-searched, and experts in the field were contacted. The search was restricted to the past 10 years to keep the review relevant, as communication knowledge, interventions, and technologies develop rapidly. The searches were optimised for each database via an iterative process (Supplementary Table S1).

Study selection

Search results were exported to EndNote™ (version 20) and deduplicated before screening. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Rayyan.¹⁰ Full copies of all reports considered potentially relevant were obtained and two reviewers independently assessed these for inclusion. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus or discussion with a third reviewer.

Data extraction

One reviewer extracted study data using a piloted form, which was iteratively adapted. Data extraction was checked in detail by a second reviewer. Study authors were contacted for clarification, where necessary. Information including country, mode of communication, and types of tests studied were extracted (Supplementary Table S2).

Quality assessment of included studies

Randomised controlled trials were assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool,¹¹ non-randomised studies of interventions using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies — of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool,¹² non-randomised studies of exposure using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies — of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool,¹³ and cross-sectional studies using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS) quality assessment tool.¹⁴ Qualitative studies and the qualitative component of mixed-methods studies were assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool for qualitative studies.¹⁵

Eligibility criteria

Primary studies of any design that provided information on the communication of blood test results by primary care staff (for example, doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, receptionists) and other providers (for example, primary care practices, primary care networks [PCNs], medical health insurance providers) to adult patients and carers were eligible for inclusion.

As ‘primary care’ varies across the world and has no single agreed definition,¹⁶ the authors defined primary care broadly as including all methods of care except those on emergency, urgent or acute care, or where the participants were inpatients.

The authors defined ‘communication of blood test results’ as any communication from the time of agreeing to order a test onwards, including what to expect from the results, when to expect the results, conveying the test results, how to interpret the results, and ensuring understanding of the next steps (Figure 1). This included the systems within primary care that aim to ensure that communication of blood test results to patients and carers takes place. Studies were also included where artificially generated data or hypothetical scenarios were used. Case studies, studies of point-of-care or genetic tests, studies exclusively in children, or communication of test results from laboratories to primary care were excluded.

Figure 1.

Scope of review.

Data synthesis and integration

The review synthesis was conducted following JBI guidance for mixed-methods systematic reviews using a segregated convergent approach.¹⁷ For synthesis of the qualitative data, the meta-aggregative approach was used.¹⁵^,¹⁸ Meta-analyses of quantitative data were not possible as there was a lack of homogeneous data on test result communication interventions. The findings from qualitative and quantitative data were synthesised separately, using narrative synthesis methods and the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance.¹⁹ The syntheses of the qualitative and quantitative data were then combined and configured using juxtaposition and organised using the review objectives to create the convergent synthesis.

Patient and public involvement

Two authors of this review are patient and public involvement (PPI) participants. A PPI group provided input into the design of the protocol and were consulted on the review conduct and reporting. The PPI input highlighted aspects of blood test result communication that were important to patients and carers. The points raised by the PPI group were used to guide the synthesis of the results, including highlighting when studies from a particular country (such as the US) were the majority of the evidence for a point and discussing the evidence in relation to ‘normal’ and ‘abnormal’ test results. Where evidence important to PPI participants was missing, these gaps were highlighted, such as drawing attention to whether carers were included in the evidence base.

Results

Summary of included studies

The searches identified 4982 records of which 263 records were sought for retrieval (Figure 2). There were 71 included studies (72 reports), of which 41 were quantitative, 19 were qualitative, and 11 were mixed-methods studies (Table 1). There were few experimental studies: one controlled trial, three uncontrolled pre–post studies, six randomised factorial studies, and no randomised controlled trials (Supplementary Tables S3–S5).

Figure 2.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flowchart.

View this table:

Table 1.

Characteristics of included studies

Quality of included studies

Qualitative

Using the JBI tool, three quality indicators (Q6, 7, 8) were consistently not reported: no studies provided a cultural or theoretical positioning of the authors (Q6); none provided any description of their influence on the studies (Q7); and 22/28 studies did not adequately report the participants’ voices, with most offering only one quote to support a finding (Q8) (Supplementary Table S6).

Quantitative

Cross-sectional studies, assessed using the AXIS tool, had clear aims (Q1) 39/40 and an appropriate design (Q2) 37/40. The population of interest (Q4) was reported in 27/40 but the number of studies where the selection process was likely to lead to a representative sample of the population was low 8/40 (Q6), and the sample sizes were not justified (Q3) 39/40. Response rates raised concerns about non-response bias in 20/40 studies (Q13). Non-responders were addressed in 2/40 (Q7) and information about non-responders was described in 1/40 studies (Q14). The outcomes were appropriate for 33/40 studies (Q8); however, only 10/40 reported using previously piloted or validated outcome measures (Q9) (Supplementary Table S7).

The risk of bias was high for the six randomised factorial studies,²⁰^–²⁵ which randomised patients to groups in which two or more variables, such as display format and test result normalcy, were assessed, and one controlled experimental study.²⁶ The risk of bias was critical for two uncontrolled pre–post studies²⁷^,²⁸ and serious for another.²⁹ There was a high risk of bias for the one cohort study³⁰ (Supplementary Table S8).

Convergent synthesis

Table 2 summarises the convergent synthesis, which was configured according to the review objectives. Synthesis of the qualitative and quantitative data are shown in Supplementary Tables S9–S11.

View this table:

Table 2.

Summary of convergent synthesis results

Objective 1: What interventions can be used to improve communication of blood test results to patients and carers in primary care?

No randomised controlled trials of interventions were found. There was no evidence of benefit for a question prompt list²⁹ or for a standardised letter for test communication²⁷ from two very small, poor-quality before-and-after studies. There was weak evidence from a non-randomised controlled study of increased performance (percentage of new or previously identified abnormal test results appropriately acted on by US doctors) and reduction in workload for using an electronic health record with enhanced automation to help sort and flag critical abnormal results. The trial was assessed as having a high risk of bias.²⁶

Objective 2: Patients’ needs and preferences

Mode of communication preferences (22 studies)

Portals (online access)

Receiving test results through patient portals (via an online interface) was viewed as acceptable or preferred, particularly if patients had used a portal before³¹^,³² or if results were normal or routine.³¹^,³³ Perceived benefits of online access included being able to share results with multiple health providers, reducing consultations, and being more informed before consultations.³⁴^–³⁶ Preferences were mixed, even in the same populations, and not all patients preferred online communication.³¹^,³⁷ Patients in Sweden wanted to receive results via letter in addition to online.³⁸^,³⁹ Preference for online access when results were ‘bad news’ or sensitive was mixed,³⁶^,⁴⁰ with some patients reporting that it was unacceptable⁴¹^,⁴² unless this resulted in a delay,³¹ while some found it acceptable or preferred it.³² Patients wanted more information about electronic medical records, and they were not always clear about how they worked.⁴³ In the US military, older patients but not younger patients preferred online access.⁴⁴

Text or short message service (SMS) messaging

Communication of test results by text message was acceptable, particularly for normal results,²⁸^,³⁵^,⁴⁵^–⁴⁷ even where the result may be sensitive (for example, HIV tests);⁴⁶ however, this varied³⁵^,⁴⁸^,⁴⁹ and was lower for older people,²⁸^,⁴⁵ those with multiple health conditions,⁴⁵ or if the results were abnormal.³⁵^,⁴⁵ Trust in the clinician raised willingness to receive results by text in patients with cancer.⁴⁹

Telephone or face to face

Some patients expressed a preference for test results to be communicated directly via telephone or in a consultation,⁵⁰ particularly for sensitive, problematic, or abnormal results.⁴⁵ Specialist doctors were preferred to primary care doctors for providing cancer test results,⁴² and doctors preferred to nurses for results that required changes in medication dose.³³ Patients expressed concern about results being communicated by non-clinically trained staff, such as receptionists, for all but routine and minor tests.³⁵^,⁵¹

Information needs and preferences (13 studies)

Patients often needed and wanted to know more about the test results than was provided to them, particularly in terms of ‘what next’, including lifestyle changes and personalised treatment options.³⁴^,⁴⁰^,⁵²^–⁵⁵ They found the test result information provided through a portal inadequate.³¹^,⁴¹ Patients sought additional information by reading information provided with test results, contacting doctors, family, and friends, and the internet. This was more likely if results were abnormal and if additional information from the clinician was not available.²⁴^,³²^,⁵²^,⁵³^,⁵⁶ Patients who were unsure if they needed follow-up after viewing their results online were more anxious than those who knew whether follow-up was needed.⁴³ One UK study⁵⁷ found patients prefer to have all their test results communicated to them, including ‘normal’ results. Some patients reported being unable to determine whether results were normal or abnormal and not understanding terms such as ‘negative’ and ‘non-reactive’.⁵³

Preferences for timing of test communication (nine studies)

Patients preferred as little waiting time as possible, even when the results could be sensitive; ‘delays’ were associated with frustration, anxiety, and avoidance. Patient-portal users chose very short times (mostly 1 day) or immediate release of test results and tended to pick a shorter duration if they changed their mind about waiting time.³¹^,³²^,³⁵^,³⁶^,³⁸^,⁴¹^,⁵¹^,⁵⁷ Reasons were varied, including time to research implications of test results, processing bad news, and thinking about questions to ask. Some patients, including patients with cancer, would have preferred to have delayed results as it caused anxiety waiting to discuss them with a clinician. Higher health literacy was associated with a preference for shorter waiting times.³⁸ Patients preferred close-ended timing information (for example, results will be available in 2 weeks); this did not vary for different tests.⁵⁸

Preferences for level of access to results (nine studies)

Patients preferred to access test results easily, at any time,³⁴^–³⁶^,⁵¹ with any level of ability,³⁶^,⁵³ and to view as much or as little information as they wanted.⁵³ Patients preferred test results to be communicated confidentially⁵¹^,⁵⁵ and some wanted to know who would have access to them.⁵⁹ Patients were comfortable with methods of communication with a high level of access control, including letters, password-protected websites, and personal voicemail or email, but were not always comfortable with fax, text message, and voicemail.⁴⁸ Patients’ preferences were split on whether they should access test results at the same time as doctors and whether doctors should be allowed to withhold results until they had seen and discussed them.⁶⁰

Objective 3: Clinicians’ needs and preferences

Communicating result information to patients (six studies)

Doctors in the US and Australia were prepared to have normal test results released automatically to patients.⁶¹ Healthcare staff were frustrated with the time and resources to communicate normal test results,⁵⁷ with text messaging seen as a time-saving mode of communication.⁶² Healthcare staff thought a leaflet with links to further information about tests would be beneficial for patients even if they received results online.⁴⁷ There was concern that older patients would not adapt to changes in telephone communication such as a separate line for test results.⁴⁷ There was a preference for colourful pictorial test result formats compared with tables or simple designs.⁶³ Doctors had variable opinions about whether additional information on test result reports would benefit patients or their relationship with them owing to the accessibility of information via the internet and other sources.⁵⁵

Mode and timing of communication (nine studies)

Clinicians preferred interactive communication, such as phone calls and return visits, where results required more input or would have more impact such as a change of medication or additional testing.³³^,³⁵^,⁴⁵^,⁶²^,⁶⁴ Clinicians and healthcare staff preferred more passive methods of communication, such as asking patients to contact the provider, email, text messages, and online access, where the results were normal;³³^,⁴⁵^,⁶² however, there was also concern that communication of normal results was not necessary.⁴⁷^,⁵⁷^,⁶² Up-to-date contact information was important, particularly where the recipient’s identity could not be confirmed in real time such as email, phone voicemail, and text messages.⁵⁷^,⁶² Doctors with experience with using patient portals and direct release of test results were more comfortable with this than those unfamiliar with it.⁶¹ Doctors were concerned that direct online release of test results created additional anxiety for patients and extra workload for them.⁶⁵ Communicating several test results to a patient, often spread out over time as they were not all received at once, created higher workload and stress for UK healthcare staff.⁶²

Communication via healthcare staff (two studies)

Healthcare staff, particularly receptionists, were impacted by the quality and nature of test communication from clinicians to patients.⁶⁶ They experienced frustration, anxiety, and pressure, owing to a lack of clarity and use of medical terms, which impacted communication of test results to patients.⁶⁶ Communication of test results from doctor to healthcare staff and then to patients would benefit from clarity of communication and training.⁴⁷

Objective 4: Barriers and facilitators

Practical issues (14 studies)

Practical considerations,⁴⁶ such as vacations,⁶⁷ clinicians leaving,⁶⁷ finding technology difficult,⁶⁸ poor health or limited mobility,⁵¹^,⁶⁹ costs,⁶⁸^,⁶⁹ time and distance for return trips,⁵¹^,⁶⁹ incorrect contact information or inability to contact patients,⁶⁶^,⁶⁸^,⁷⁰^,⁷¹ availability of appointments,³⁵ and waiting on the phone for results,⁵¹ were reported as frustrating or potential barriers to communication, which were reported by mostly patients from the US and the UK.

Literacy and numeracy may affect patient behaviour and their ability to interpret test results.²³ Patients with sufficient health literacy were interested in additional test information and resources.⁵⁴ Patients were sometimes confused by information, including reference ranges and medical terminology.²³^,³⁸^,³⁹^,⁶⁰ Telephone calls to primary care practices increased after normal tests were directly released online without doctor involvement.⁶⁵

Responsibility for test result communication (nine studies)

There were different opinions and a lack of clarity among clinicians, healthcare staff, and patients around who had responsibility to follow-up test results, with implications for patient safety.⁴⁷^,⁵¹^,⁵⁷^,⁶²^,⁶⁶ Clinicians often took responsibility for test communication where they were concerned, or assessed that the patient was vulnerable, or the results were likely to be abnormal and/or impactful.⁶⁴^,⁷² Having no dedicated test management staff or inadequate staffing for a reliable point of contact was reported as a concern by US primary healthcare staff.⁷⁰^,⁷¹

Workarounds (five studies)

Workarounds are electronic or paper-based manual steps used in addition to standard process. Examples include keeping paper lists, or setting electronic reminders to ensure important results are followed up to avoid patient safety issues.⁶⁴ These can cause frustration, duplication, and increased workload.⁶⁴^,⁶⁶^,⁶⁷^,⁷³^,⁷⁴ Clinicians and healthcare staff used workarounds to cope with poor organisation and communication of data,⁷³ and to avoid safety issues⁶⁴ such as losing test results.⁷³ Use of mechanisms to stop test results being missed was associated with a lower risk of test communication breakdown.⁶⁷

Alerts and notifications (four studies)

The number of electronic health record-based alert notifications that clinicians receive was perceived as too high and the lack of separating the notifications based on urgency may have created a barrier in communication of test results.²⁷^,⁷⁴^,⁷⁵ Nevertheless, having notifications about test results was believed to facilitate the testing process and reduce risks of failure to communicate abnormal results, which was important for patient safety.⁶⁸

Clinician behaviour (five studies)

When communicating test results, negative emotional reactions,⁶⁶^,⁷⁶ providing unclear test result information to healthcare staff,⁶⁶ or ordering sensitive and impactful tests (for example, HIV) without the patient initially requesting them⁶⁹ may be barriers. These behaviours have been associated with non-collection of results,⁶⁹ healthcare staff communication of results to patients being inhibited,⁶⁶ and patients’ lack of satisfaction with the communication of results.⁷⁶ Clinicians may present ‘bad’ test results as numbers alone to help them avoid making moral characterisations and balance the doctor–patient relationship.⁷⁸

Display format and content of results (15 studies)

Presentation of test results in graphical or tabular format, use of goal or reference ranges,⁷⁷ as well as additional information in video or verbal formats helped patients achieve a better understanding of the results.²¹^,²²^,²⁵^,³⁴^,⁴⁰^,⁵³^,⁶³ This was effective when the results were ‘borderline’ (that is, slightly out of range) but did not necessarily make a difference when results were clearly out of range.²⁰ When the general public were surveyed, medical phrases for blood test results seemed to be well understood; however, when discussing their views and experiences, patients believed they were a barrier to interpreting test results.⁵³^,⁷⁹^,⁸⁰

Discussion

Summary

Existing evidence on test communication is heterogeneous, with a lack of interventional studies, no randomised controlled trials, and no evidence-based best-practice strategy for communication of blood test results. Patients want more information about their blood test results, particularly in terms of ‘what happens next’, and prefer test results to be provided quickly. Electronic methods, such as online direct access or text messages, were generally well accepted but not by everyone, and not for all results. Presentation of test results in a visual, graphical, or tabular format could help patients to achieve a better level of understanding of tests. Clinicians’ opinions were mixed as to whether more information and direct release of test results to patients without clinician input was beneficial or could cause problems such as increased workload. Barriers to test communication included time pressures and unclear processes, uncertainty about who was responsible for follow-up, as well as the burden of workarounds, electronic health record-based alerts, and notifications; overcoming these barriers is important for patient safety.

Strengths and limitations

PPI participants, including two authors of the review, provided input into this review throughout its lifecycle, which ensured the findings highlight the issues that patients and carers want answered. The study sought to review blood test communication in the primary care setting; however, the definition of ‘primary care’ varies around the world. A strength is that all relevant evidence was included by covering all care settings that were not inpatients, urgent, or acute care. The disadvantage of this broad approach is that the review does not provide a focused response for a UK definition of primary care, although the authors believe that the findings are mostly generalisable. A narrow definition aligned to UK primary care would have found fewer studies, and probably been less relevant. The principles of good communication of test results are generalisable across the several care settings that were included.

Broad inclusion criteria were created using the authors’ knowledge of the research topic and the evidence base. The resulting heterogeneity and quality of reporting of the included studies meant that it was not possible to quantitatively synthesise the evidence. Creating a search around the broad criteria and the many different terms currently being used for test communication was challenging. In balancing the need for an achievable review with the sensitivity and specificity of the review, it is acknowledged that some studies may have been omitted.

Comparison with existing literature

A review of adult patient access to electronic health records found that the effects were mostly uncertain.⁸¹ A review of different methods of communicating cancer screening results (letter, phone, and in-person) found that the most appropriate method of communication was not known owing to the lack of high-quality evidence and different patient preferences.⁸² One systematic review found that pictorial health information (not limited to test result communication) moderately improved patients’ knowledge and understanding, particularly among lower health literacy populations.⁸³

Implications for research and practice

The NHS in England is rolling out online access to blood test results. There has been a pushback against this move, with GPs fearing that patients will worry more, or find their GP records more confusing than helpful.⁸⁴ However, evidence from countries such as the US, where patient portals have been studied for more than a decade, suggests these fears may be largely unfounded, with research showing online access is generally well accepted by patients. Various patient-centred tools for displaying test results in a visual or graphical way have been developed to improve patient understanding, which could be applicable to online portals in the UK such as the NHS App. Attention should be paid to the level of accompanying information provided by clinicians to ensure that comments are written in patient-friendly language, with patients particularly wanting more information about ‘what next’. There is a need for further evidence about the impact of the current shift towards online access to test results on primary care workload.

One clear message from this review is that reliance on the NHS App for test communication is not sufficient. A range of methods for test communication are needed to meet the needs of different patients, and for different test results. Practices should ensure they have clear protocols for communicating abnormal or impactful blood test results to ensure patient safety.

There are aspects of test communication that the evidence has not addressed. There were no trials of interventions such as patient portals to assess the benefits and harms. There was little assessment of face-to-face communication, which is still a major mode of blood test result communication in primary care.

Patients who do not use online technology and those with barriers to accessing primary care are not adequately represented in the studies included in this review. Many studies selected their population via online portals or via online questionnaires. Further research is needed to explore the experiences and preferences of people at risk of digital exclusion, for example, older people, minority ethnic groups, people without English as a first language, and those with additional needs. This is important to ensure that the move to online test result communication does not increase health inequalities. No research was found about communication of blood tests to carers, which the study’s PPI representatives felt was an important and common scenario.

In conclusion, online access to test results is generally well accepted by patients, but reliance on electronic communication methods alone is not sufficient to meet the needs of different patients and different types of test result. When accessing test results, by whatever method, patients need enough information to know what the results mean for their health, and what happens next. GPs should therefore ensure that comments added to blood test results are written in patient-friendly language. Practices should ensure they have clear protocols for communicating abnormal or sensitive results, and should explain methods of test communication to patients at the time of testing. Improving test result communication is important for patient-centred care, patient safety, and primary care workload.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the PPI panel members.

Notes

Funding

Dr Singh is funded in part by the Houston Veterans Administration (VA) Health Services Research and Development (HSR&D) Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety (CIN13–413), the VA National Center for Patient Safety, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS028595, R18HS029347, and R01HS029318). This report is independent research by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR 600). The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, the Department of Health, the Department of Veterans Affairs, or the US Government. Funding reference number: SPCR 600.

Ethical approval

This systematic review did not require ethical approval from a review board as it only analysed previously published data.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article:

bjgp.org/letters

Received June 7, 2024.
Revision requested July 10, 2024.
Accepted September 27, 2024.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This article is Open Access: CC BY 4.0 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/).

References

1.↵
(2024) Royal College of Pathologists. Pathology facts and figures, https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/news/fact-sheets/pathology-facts-and-figures-.html (accessed 29 Jan 2025).
2.↵
1. McMillan B,
2. Davidge G,
3. Blease C,
4. Watson J
(2022) Implications of the changes to patient online records access in English primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X721205.
3.↵
1. NHS England
(2015) The benefits of online test results, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/po-cs-benefits-online-test-results.pdf (accessed 29 Jan 2025).
4.↵
1. Davidge G,
2. Brown L,
3. Lyons M,
4. et al.
(2023) Primary care staff’s views and experience of patients’ online access to their electronic health record: a qualitative exploration. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0436.
5.↵
(2017) James Lind Alliance. Patient safety in primary care top 10, https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/patient-safety-in-primary-care#tab-27941 (accessed 10 Feb 2025).
6.↵
(2008) The Research Priority Setting Working Group of the World Health Organization (WHO) World Alliance for Patient Safety. Summary of the evidence on patient safety: implications for research. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43874/9789241596541_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 10 Feb 2025).
7.↵
1. Callen JL,
2. Westbrook JI,
3. Georgiou A,
4. Li J
(2012) Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 27, 1334–1348.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
8.↵
1. Nankervis H,
2. Huntley A,
3. Whiting P,
4. et al.
(2023) Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol. BJGP Open, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0105.
9.↵
1. Page MJ,
2. McKenzie JE,
3. Bossuyt PM,
4. et al.
(2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
10.↵
1. Ouzzani M,
2. Hammady H,
3. Fedorowicz Z,
4. Elmagarmid A
(2016) Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5, 210, 210.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
11.↵
1. Higgins JPT,
2. Thomas J,
3. Chandler J,
4. et al.
1. Higgins JPT,
2. Savović J,
3. Page MJ,
4. et al.
(2022) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, eds Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester) https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.3/chapter-08 (accessed 13 Feb 2025).
12.↵
1. Sterne JA,
2. Hernán MA,
3. Reeves BC,
4. et al.
(2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355, i4919.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
13.↵
1. Higgins JPT,
2. Morgan RL,
3. Rooney AA,
4. et al.
(2024) A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int 186, 108602.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
14.↵
1. Downes MJ,
2. Brennan ML,
3. Williams HC,
4. Dean RS
(2016) Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open 6, e011458.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
15.↵
1. Lockwood C,
2. Munn Z,
3. Porritt K
(2015) Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13, 3, 179–187.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
16.↵
1. Amisi J,
2. Downing R
(2017) Primary care research: does it defy definition? Prim Health Care Res Dev 18, 6, 523–526.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
1. Stern RM,
2. Al-Samkari H,
3. Connors JM
(2019) Thrombophilia evaluation in pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Cardiol 34, 6, 603–609.
OpenUrl PubMed
18.↵
1. Hannes K,
2. Lockwood C
(2011) Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 67, 7, 1632–1642.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
19.↵
1. Campbell M,
2. McKenzie JE,
3. Sowden A,
4. et al.
(2020) Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 368, l6890.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
20.↵
1. Bar-Lev S,
2. Beimel D
(2020) Numbers, graphs and words — do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals? Isr J Health Policy Res 9, 1, 58.
OpenUrl PubMed
21.↵
1. Brose SF,
2. Binder K,
3. Fischer MR,
4. et al.
Bayesian versus diagnostic information in physician-patient communication: effects of direction of statistical information and presentation of visualization. PLoS One, 2023, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283947.
22.↵
1. Scherer AM,
2. Witteman HO,
3. Solomon J,
4. et al.
(2018) Improving the understanding of test results by substituting (not adding) goal ranges: web-based between-subjects experiment. J Med Internet Res 20, 10, e11027.
OpenUrl PubMed
23.↵
1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
2. Exe NL,
3. Witteman HO
(2014) Numeracy and literacy independently predict patients’ ability to identify out-of-range test results. J Med Internet Res 16, 8, e187.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
24.↵
1. Struikman B,
2. Bol N,
3. Goedhart A,
4. et al.
(2020) Features of a patient portal for blood test results and patient health engagement: web-based pre-post experiment. J Med Internet Res 22, 7, e15798.
OpenUrl PubMed
25.↵
1. Morrow D,
2. Azevedo RFL,
3. Garcia-Retamero R,
4. et al.
(2019) Contextualizing numeric clinical test results for gist comprehension: implications for EHR patient portals. J Exp Psychol Appl 25, 1, 41–61.
OpenUrl PubMed
26.↵
1. Mazur LM,
2. Mosaly PR,
3. Moore C,
4. et al.
(2019) Association of the usability of electronic health records with cognitive workload and performance levels among physicians. JAMA Netw Open 2, 4, e191709.
OpenUrl
27.↵
1. Hodges HA
(2017) Standardized automated notification process for safe and effective management of test result delivery in a VA facility, 1–1, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b8e96024-2e64-4874-86ea-be307b295c98/content (accessed 10 Feb 2025).
28.↵
1. Bonet JM,
2. Hernández Ó,
3. Solans Ó,
4. et al.
(2018) The effectiveness of starting up a communications centre for sending mail or SMS with normal test results in primary healthcare. Health Technol 8, 51–56.
OpenUrl
29.↵
1. Kim GS,
2. Shim MS,
3. Choi JY,
4. et al.
(2020) Testing a question prompt intervention to improve communication between patients with HIV and healthcare providers: a pilot study. J Community Health Nurs 37, 3, 153–163.
OpenUrl PubMed
30.↵
1. Jiang S,
2. Lv M,
3. Zeng Z,
4. et al.
(2022) Efficacy and safety of app-based remote warfarin management during COVID-19-related lockdown: a retrospective cohort study. J Thromb Thrombolysis 54, 20–28.
OpenUrl PubMed
31.↵
1. Bruno B,
2. Steele S,
3. Carbone J,
4. et al.
(2022) Informed or anxious: patient preferences for release of test results of increasing sensitivity on electronic patient portals. Health Technol (Berl) 12, 59–67.
OpenUrl PubMed
32.↵
1. Steitz BD,
2. Turer RW,
3. Lin CT,
4. et al.
(2023) Perspectives of patients about immediate access to test results through an online patient portal. JAMA Netw Open 6, 3, e233572.
OpenUrl PubMed
33.↵
1. Graybill S,
2. Kluesner J,
3. True M,
4. et al.
(2018) Getting new test results to patients. Qual Manag Health Care 27, 3, 145–150.
OpenUrl PubMed
34.↵
1. Robinson S,
2. Reed M,
3. Quevillon T,
4. Hirvi E
(2019) Patient perceptions and interactions with their web portal-based laboratory results. BMJ Health Care Inform 26, 1, doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000012.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
35.↵
1. Watson J,
2. Salisbury C,
3. Whiting PF,
4. et al.
(2022) ‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’ — communication of blood test results in primary care: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0069.
36.↵
1. Giardina TD,
2. Modi V,
3. Parrish DE,
4. Singh H
(2015) The patient portal and abnormal test results: an exploratory study of patient experiences. Patient Exp J 2, 1, 148–154.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
37.↵
1. Sulllivan C,
2. Smolowitz J
(2013) Patient notification of test results in a primary care setting. Clin Schol Rev 6, 2, doi:10.1891/1939-2095.6.2.120.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
38.↵
1. Grauman A,
2. Hansson M,
3. James S,
4. et al.
(2021) Communicating test results from a general health check: preferences from a discrete choice experiment survey. Patient 14, 649–660.
OpenUrl PubMed
39.↵
1. Grauman A,
2. Viberg Johansson J,
3. Falahee M,
4. Veldwijk J
(2022) Public perceptions of myocardial infarction: do illness perceptions predict preferences for health check results. Prev Med Rep 26, 101683.
OpenUrl PubMed
40.↵
1. Monkman H,
2. Griffith J,
3. Macdonald L,
4. et al.
(2022) Why do people use online lab results and what do they look for: a qualitative study. Stud Health Technol Inform 294, 599–603.
OpenUrl PubMed
41.↵
1. Hulter P,
2. Langendoen W,
3. Pluut B,
4. et al.
(2023) Patients’ choices regarding online access to laboratory, radiology and pathology test results on a hospital patient portal. PLoS One 18, 2, e0280768.
OpenUrl PubMed
42.↵
1. Onuma AE,
2. Palmer Kelly E,
3. Chakedis J,
4. et al.
(2019) Patient preferences on the use of technology in cancer surveillance after curative surgery: a cross-sectional analysis. Surgery 165, 4, 782–788.
OpenUrl PubMed
43.↵
1. Mák G,
2. Smith Fowler H,
3. Leaver C,
4. et al.
(2015) The effects of web-based patient access to laboratory results in British Columbia: a patient survey on comprehension and anxiety. J Med Internet Res 17, 8, e191.
OpenUrl PubMed
44.↵
1. Hernandez BF,
2. Morgan BJ,
3. Ish J,
4. et al.
(2018) Communication preferences and satisfaction of secure messaging among patients and providers in the military healthcare system. Mil Med 183, 11–12, e383–e390.
OpenUrl
45.↵
1. Rayner JE,
2. Jagirdar K,
3. Soyer PH,
4. McMeniman EK
(2017) Patients’ and doctors’ preferences for disclosing dermatology results. Australas J Dermatol 58, 4, e282–e283.
OpenUrl PubMed
46.↵
1. Charron J,
2. Troude P,
3. de La Rochebrochard E,
4. et al.
(2022) Notification of STI test results by text messaging: why do patients refuse? Cross-sectional study in a Parisian sexual health centre. Int J STD AIDS 33, 3, 257–264.
OpenUrl PubMed
47.↵
1. Litchfield IJ,
2. Bentham LM,
3. Lilford RJ,
4. et al.
(2017) Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 17, 615, 615.
OpenUrl PubMed
48.↵
1. LaRocque JR,
2. Davis CL,
3. Tan TP,
4. et al.
(2015) Patient preferences for receiving reports of test results. J Am Board Fam Med 28, 6, 759–766.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
49.↵
1. Serrano KJ,
2. Yu M,
3. Riley WT,
4. et al.
(2016) Willingness to exchange health information via mobile devices: findings from a population-based survey. Ann Fam Med 14, 1, 34–40.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
50.↵
1. Rexhepi H,
2. Moll J,
3. Huvila I,
4. Åhlfeldt RM
(2021) Do you want to receive bad news through your patient accessible electronic health record? A national survey on receiving bad news in an era of digital health. Health Informatics J 27, 3, 14604582211035817.
OpenUrl PubMed
51.↵
1. Litchfield IJ,
2. Bentham LM,
3. Lilford RJ,
4. et al.
(2015) Patient perspectives on test result communication in primary care: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683929.
52.↵
1. Giardina TD,
2. Baldwin J,
3. Nystrom DT,
4. et al.
(2018) Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25, 4, 440–446.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
53.↵
1. Zhang Z,
2. Citardi D,
3. Xing A,
4. et al.
(2020) Patient challenges and needs in comprehending laboratory test results: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res 22, 12, e18725.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
54.↵
1. Watson J,
2. Whiting PF,
3. Salisbury C,
4. et al.
(2022) Blood tests in primary care: a qualitative study of communication and decision-making between doctors and patients. Health Expect 25, 5, 2453–2461.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
55.↵
1. Kelman A,
2. Robinson CO,
3. Cochin E,
4. et al.
(2016) Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want? Patient Prefer Adherence 10, 2501–2517.
OpenUrl PubMed
56.↵
1. Nielsen NB,
2. Sekkal CK,
3. Yoganathan S
(2021) Online investigations on optimizing the Danish health portal sundhed.dk. Stud Health Technol Inform 286, 89–93.
OpenUrl PubMed
57.↵
1. Litchfield I,
2. Bentham L,
3. Hill A,
4. et al.
(2015) Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf 24, 681–690.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
58.↵
1. Dooley MD,
2. Burreal S,
3. Sweeny K
(2017) ‘We’ll call you when the results are in’: preferences for how medical test results are delivered. Patient Educ Couns 100, 2, 364–366.
OpenUrl PubMed
59.↵
1. Zhang Z,
2. Kmoth L,
3. Luo X,
4. He Z
(2021) User-centered system design for communicating clinical laboratory test results: design and evaluation study. JMIR Hum Factors 8, 4, e26017.
OpenUrl
60.↵
1. Moerenhout T,
2. Devisch I,
3. Cooreman L,
4. et al.
(2021) Patients’ moral attitudes toward electronic health records: survey study with vignettes and statements. Health Informatics J 27, 1, 1460458220980039.
OpenUrl PubMed
61.↵
1. Giardina TD,
2. Callen J,
3. Georgiou A,
4. et al.
(2015) Releasing test results directly to patients: a multisite survey of physician perspectives. Patient Educ Couns 98, 6, 788–796.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
62.↵
1. Litchfield IJ,
2. Bentham LM,
3. Lilford RJ,
4. Greenfield SM
(2014) Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives. Fam Pract 31, 5, 592–597.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
63.↵
1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
2. Solomon JB,
3. Scherer AM,
4. et al.
(2019) Primary care providers’ preferences and concerns regarding specific visual displays for returning hemoglobin A1c test results to patients. Med Decis Making 39, 7, 796–804.
OpenUrl PubMed
64.↵
1. Nicholson BD,
2. Goyder CR,
3. Bankhead CR,
4. et al.
(2018) Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X695813.
65.↵
1. Pillemer F,
2. Price RA,
3. Paone S,
4. et al.
(2016) Direct release of test results to patients increases patient engagement and utilization of care. PLoS One, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154743.
66.↵
1. Bowie P,
2. Halley L,
3. McKay J
(2014) Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice. BMJ Open 4, e004245.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
67.↵
1. Menon S,
2. Smith MW,
3. Sittig DF,
4. et al.
(2014) How context affects electronic health record-based test result follow-up: a mixed-methods evaluation. BMJ Open 4, e005985.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
68.↵
1. Murphy DR,
2. Satterly T,
3. Rogith D,
4. et al.
(2019) Barriers and facilitators impacting reliability of the electronic health record-facilitated total testing process. Int J Med Inform 127, 102–108.
OpenUrl PubMed
69.↵
1. Gutiérrez E,
2. Iglesias MC,
3. Quezada-Juarez FJ,
4. et al.
(2018) Why individuals fail to collect HIV-test results: an exploratory study at a testing and counseling center in Mexico City. Rev Panam Salud Publica 42, e14.
OpenUrl PubMed
70.↵
1. Clarity C,
2. Sarkar U,
3. Lee J,
4. et al.
(2017) Clinician perspectives on the management of abnormal subcritical tests in an urban academic safety-net health care system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 43, 10, 517–523.
OpenUrl PubMed
71.↵
1. Rogith D,
2. Satterly T,
3. Singh H,
4. et al.
(2020) Application of human factors methods to understand missed follow-up of abnormal test results. Appl Clin Inform 11, 5, 692–698.
OpenUrl PubMed
72.↵
1. Litchfield I,
2. Bentham L,
3. Lilford R,
4. et al.
(2015) Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice. BMJ Qual Saf 24, 691–699.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
73.↵
1. Menon S,
2. Murphy DR,
3. Singh H,
4. et al.
(2016) Workarounds and test results follow-up in electronic health record-based primary care. Appl Clin Inform 7, 2, 543–559.
OpenUrl PubMed
74.↵
1. Smith MW,
2. Hughes AM,
3. Brown C,
4. et al.
(2019) Test results management and distributed cognition in electronic health record-enabled primary care. Health Informatics J 25, 4, 1549–1562.
OpenUrl PubMed
75.↵
1. Singh H,
2. Spitzmueller C,
3. Petersen NJ,
4. et al.
(2013) Primary care practitioners’ views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20, 4, 727–773.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
76.↵
1. De Vries AMM,
2. Gholamrezaee MM,
3. Verdonck-de Leeuw IM,
4. et al.
(2017) Patient satisfaction and alliance as a function of the physician’s self-regulation, the physician’s stress, and the content of consultation in cancer care. Psycho-Oncology 26, 7, 927–934.
OpenUrl PubMed
77.↵
1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
2. Scherer AM,
3. Witteman HO,
4. et al.
(2018) Effect of harm anchors in visual displays of test results on patient perceptions of urgency about near-normal values: experimental study. J Med Internet Res 20, 3, e98.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
78.↵
1. Montenegro RE,
2. Dori-Hacohen G
(2020) Morality in sugar talk: presenting blood glucose levels in routine diabetes medical visits. Soc Sci Med 253, 112925.
OpenUrl PubMed
79.↵
1. Gotlieb R,
2. Praska C,
3. Hendrickson MA,
4. et al.
(2022) Accuracy in patient understanding of common medical phrases. JAMA Netw Open 5, 11, e2242972.
OpenUrl CrossRef
80.↵
1. Kackov S,
2. Simundic AM,
3. Gatti-Drnic A
(2013) Are patients well informed about the fasting requirements for laboratory blood testing? Biochem Med (Zagreb) 23, 3, 326–331.
OpenUrl PubMed
81.↵
1. Ammenwerth E,
2. Neyer S,
3. Hörbst A,
4. et al.
(2021) Adult patient access to electronic health records. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2, 2, CD012707.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
82.↵
1. Williamson S,
2. Patterson J,
3. Crosby R,
4. et al.
(2019) Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: a mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences. Prev Med Rep 13, 189–195.
OpenUrl PubMed
83.↵
1. Schubbe D,
2. Scalia P,
3. Yen RW,
4. et al.
(2020) Using pictures to convey health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 103, 10, 1935–1960.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
84.↵
1. Blease CR,
2. Kharko A,
3. Dong Z,
4. et al.
(2024) Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England. BMJ Open 14, e078158.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

In this issue

Download PDF

Download PowerPoint

Email Article

Citation Tools

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Show more Research

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

[1] 1.↵
(2024) Royal College of Pathologists. Pathology facts and figures, https://www.rcpath.org/discover-pathology/news/fact-sheets/pathology-facts-and-figures-.html (accessed 29 Jan 2025).

[2] 2.↵
McMillan B,
Davidge G,
Blease C,
Watson J
(2022) Implications of the changes to patient online records access in English primary care. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp22X721205.

[3] McMillan B,

[4] Davidge G,

[5] Blease C,

[6] Watson J

[7] 3.↵
NHS England
(2015) The benefits of online test results, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/po-cs-benefits-online-test-results.pdf (accessed 29 Jan 2025).

[8] NHS England

[9] 4.↵
Davidge G,
Brown L,
Lyons M,
et al.
(2023) Primary care staff’s views and experience of patients’ online access to their electronic health record: a qualitative exploration. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0436.

[10] Davidge G,

[11] Brown L,

[12] Lyons M,

[13] et al.

[14] 5.↵
(2017) James Lind Alliance. Patient safety in primary care top 10, https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/priority-setting-partnerships/patient-safety-in-primary-care#tab-27941 (accessed 10 Feb 2025).

[15] 6.↵
(2008) The Research Priority Setting Working Group of the World Health Organization (WHO) World Alliance for Patient Safety. Summary of the evidence on patient safety: implications for research. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43874/9789241596541_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 10 Feb 2025).

[16] 7.↵
Callen JL,
Westbrook JI,
Georgiou A,
Li J
(2012) Failure to follow-up test results for ambulatory patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med 27, 1334–1348.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[17] Callen JL,

[18] Westbrook JI,

[19] Georgiou A,

[20] Li J

[21] 8.↵
Nankervis H,
Huntley A,
Whiting P,
et al.
(2023) Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol. BJGP Open, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2023.0105.

[22] Nankervis H,

[23] Huntley A,

[24] Whiting P,

[25] et al.

[26] 9.↵
Page MJ,
McKenzie JE,
Bossuyt PM,
et al.
(2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[27] Page MJ,

[28] McKenzie JE,

[29] Bossuyt PM,

[30] et al.

[31] 10.↵
Ouzzani M,
Hammady H,
Fedorowicz Z,
Elmagarmid A
(2016) Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5, 210, 210.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[32] Ouzzani M,

[33] Hammady H,

[34] Fedorowicz Z,

[35] Elmagarmid A

[36] 11.↵
Higgins JPT,
Thomas J,
Chandler J,
et al.
Higgins JPT,
Savović J,
Page MJ,
et al.
(2022) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3, eds Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester) https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/archive/v6.3/chapter-08 (accessed 13 Feb 2025).

[37] Higgins JPT,

[38] Thomas J,

[39] Chandler J,

[40] et al.

[41] Higgins JPT,

[42] Savović J,

[43] Page MJ,

[44] et al.

[45] 12.↵
Sterne JA,
Hernán MA,
Reeves BC,
et al.
(2016) ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 355, i4919.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[46] Sterne JA,

[47] Hernán MA,

[48] Reeves BC,

[49] et al.

[50] 13.↵
Higgins JPT,
Morgan RL,
Rooney AA,
et al.
(2024) A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E). Environ Int 186, 108602.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[51] Higgins JPT,

[52] Morgan RL,

[53] Rooney AA,

[54] et al.

[55] 14.↵
Downes MJ,
Brennan ML,
Williams HC,
Dean RS
(2016) Development of a critical appraisal tool to assess the quality of cross-sectional studies (AXIS). BMJ Open 6, e011458.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[56] Downes MJ,

[57] Brennan ML,

[58] Williams HC,

[59] Dean RS

[60] 15.↵
Lockwood C,
Munn Z,
Porritt K
(2015) Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13, 3, 179–187.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[61] Lockwood C,

[62] Munn Z,

[63] Porritt K

[64] 16.↵
Amisi J,
Downing R
(2017) Primary care research: does it defy definition? Prim Health Care Res Dev 18, 6, 523–526.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[65] Amisi J,

[66] Downing R

[67] 17.↵
Stern RM,
Al-Samkari H,
Connors JM
(2019) Thrombophilia evaluation in pulmonary embolism. Curr Opin Cardiol 34, 6, 603–609.
OpenUrl PubMed

[68] Stern RM,

[69] Al-Samkari H,

[70] Connors JM

[71] 18.↵
Hannes K,
Lockwood C
(2011) Pragmatism as the philosophical foundation for the Joanna Briggs meta-aggregative approach to qualitative evidence synthesis. J Adv Nurs 67, 7, 1632–1642.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[72] Hannes K,

[73] Lockwood C

[74] 19.↵
Campbell M,
McKenzie JE,
Sowden A,
et al.
(2020) Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 368, l6890.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[75] Campbell M,

[76] McKenzie JE,

[77] Sowden A,

[78] et al.

[79] 20.↵
Bar-Lev S,
Beimel D
(2020) Numbers, graphs and words — do we really understand the lab test results accessible via the patient portals? Isr J Health Policy Res 9, 1, 58.
OpenUrl PubMed

[80] Bar-Lev S,

[81] Beimel D

[82] 21.↵
Brose SF,
Binder K,
Fischer MR,
et al.
Bayesian versus diagnostic information in physician-patient communication: effects of direction of statistical information and presentation of visualization. PLoS One, 2023, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283947.

[83] Brose SF,

[84] Binder K,

[85] Fischer MR,

[86] et al.

[87] 22.↵
Scherer AM,
Witteman HO,
Solomon J,
et al.
(2018) Improving the understanding of test results by substituting (not adding) goal ranges: web-based between-subjects experiment. J Med Internet Res 20, 10, e11027.
OpenUrl PubMed

[88] Scherer AM,

[89] Witteman HO,

[90] Solomon J,

[91] et al.

[92] 23.↵
Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
Exe NL,
Witteman HO
(2014) Numeracy and literacy independently predict patients’ ability to identify out-of-range test results. J Med Internet Res 16, 8, e187.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[93] Zikmund-Fisher BJ,

[94] Exe NL,

[95] Witteman HO

[96] 24.↵
Struikman B,
Bol N,
Goedhart A,
et al.
(2020) Features of a patient portal for blood test results and patient health engagement: web-based pre-post experiment. J Med Internet Res 22, 7, e15798.
OpenUrl PubMed

[97] Struikman B,

[98] Bol N,

[99] Goedhart A,

[100] et al.

[101] 25.↵
Morrow D,
Azevedo RFL,
Garcia-Retamero R,
et al.
(2019) Contextualizing numeric clinical test results for gist comprehension: implications for EHR patient portals. J Exp Psychol Appl 25, 1, 41–61.
OpenUrl PubMed

[102] Morrow D,

[103] Azevedo RFL,

[104] Garcia-Retamero R,

[105] et al.

[106] 26.↵
Mazur LM,
Mosaly PR,
Moore C,
et al.
(2019) Association of the usability of electronic health records with cognitive workload and performance levels among physicians. JAMA Netw Open 2, 4, e191709.
OpenUrl

[107] Mazur LM,

[108] Mosaly PR,

[109] Moore C,

[110] et al.

[111] 27.↵
Hodges HA
(2017) Standardized automated notification process for safe and effective management of test result delivery in a VA facility, 1–1, https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/b8e96024-2e64-4874-86ea-be307b295c98/content (accessed 10 Feb 2025).

[112] Hodges HA

[113] 28.↵
Bonet JM,
Hernández Ó,
Solans Ó,
et al.
(2018) The effectiveness of starting up a communications centre for sending mail or SMS with normal test results in primary healthcare. Health Technol 8, 51–56.
OpenUrl

[114] Bonet JM,

[115] Hernández Ó,

[116] Solans Ó,

[117] et al.

[118] 29.↵
Kim GS,
Shim MS,
Choi JY,
et al.
(2020) Testing a question prompt intervention to improve communication between patients with HIV and healthcare providers: a pilot study. J Community Health Nurs 37, 3, 153–163.
OpenUrl PubMed

[119] Kim GS,

[120] Shim MS,

[121] Choi JY,

[122] et al.

[123] 30.↵
Jiang S,
Lv M,
Zeng Z,
et al.
(2022) Efficacy and safety of app-based remote warfarin management during COVID-19-related lockdown: a retrospective cohort study. J Thromb Thrombolysis 54, 20–28.
OpenUrl PubMed

[124] Jiang S,

[125] Lv M,

[126] Zeng Z,

[127] et al.

[128] 31.↵
Bruno B,
Steele S,
Carbone J,
et al.
(2022) Informed or anxious: patient preferences for release of test results of increasing sensitivity on electronic patient portals. Health Technol (Berl) 12, 59–67.
OpenUrl PubMed

[129] Bruno B,

[130] Steele S,

[131] Carbone J,

[132] et al.

[133] 32.↵
Steitz BD,
Turer RW,
Lin CT,
et al.
(2023) Perspectives of patients about immediate access to test results through an online patient portal. JAMA Netw Open 6, 3, e233572.
OpenUrl PubMed

[134] Steitz BD,

[135] Turer RW,

[136] Lin CT,

[137] et al.

[138] 33.↵
Graybill S,
Kluesner J,
True M,
et al.
(2018) Getting new test results to patients. Qual Manag Health Care 27, 3, 145–150.
OpenUrl PubMed

[139] Graybill S,

[140] Kluesner J,

[141] True M,

[142] et al.

[143] 34.↵
Robinson S,
Reed M,
Quevillon T,
Hirvi E
(2019) Patient perceptions and interactions with their web portal-based laboratory results. BMJ Health Care Inform 26, 1, doi:10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000012.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[144] Robinson S,

[145] Reed M,

[146] Quevillon T,

[147] Hirvi E

[148] 35.↵
Watson J,
Salisbury C,
Whiting PF,
et al.
(2022) ‘I guess I’ll wait to hear’ — communication of blood test results in primary care: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2022.0069.

[149] Watson J,

[150] Salisbury C,

[151] Whiting PF,

[152] et al.

[153] 36.↵
Giardina TD,
Modi V,
Parrish DE,
Singh H
(2015) The patient portal and abnormal test results: an exploratory study of patient experiences. Patient Exp J 2, 1, 148–154.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[154] Giardina TD,

[155] Modi V,

[156] Parrish DE,

[157] Singh H

[158] 37.↵
Sulllivan C,
Smolowitz J
(2013) Patient notification of test results in a primary care setting. Clin Schol Rev 6, 2, doi:10.1891/1939-2095.6.2.120.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[159] Sulllivan C,

[160] Smolowitz J

[161] 38.↵
Grauman A,
Hansson M,
James S,
et al.
(2021) Communicating test results from a general health check: preferences from a discrete choice experiment survey. Patient 14, 649–660.
OpenUrl PubMed

[162] Grauman A,

[163] Hansson M,

[164] James S,

[165] et al.

[166] 39.↵
Grauman A,
Viberg Johansson J,
Falahee M,
Veldwijk J
(2022) Public perceptions of myocardial infarction: do illness perceptions predict preferences for health check results. Prev Med Rep 26, 101683.
OpenUrl PubMed

[167] Grauman A,

[168] Viberg Johansson J,

[169] Falahee M,

[170] Veldwijk J

[171] 40.↵
Monkman H,
Griffith J,
Macdonald L,
et al.
(2022) Why do people use online lab results and what do they look for: a qualitative study. Stud Health Technol Inform 294, 599–603.
OpenUrl PubMed

[172] Monkman H,

[173] Griffith J,

[174] Macdonald L,

[175] et al.

[176] 41.↵
Hulter P,
Langendoen W,
Pluut B,
et al.
(2023) Patients’ choices regarding online access to laboratory, radiology and pathology test results on a hospital patient portal. PLoS One 18, 2, e0280768.
OpenUrl PubMed

[177] Hulter P,

[178] Langendoen W,

[179] Pluut B,

[180] et al.

[181] 42.↵
Onuma AE,
Palmer Kelly E,
Chakedis J,
et al.
(2019) Patient preferences on the use of technology in cancer surveillance after curative surgery: a cross-sectional analysis. Surgery 165, 4, 782–788.
OpenUrl PubMed

[182] Onuma AE,

[183] Palmer Kelly E,

[184] Chakedis J,

[185] et al.

[186] 43.↵
Mák G,
Smith Fowler H,
Leaver C,
et al.
(2015) The effects of web-based patient access to laboratory results in British Columbia: a patient survey on comprehension and anxiety. J Med Internet Res 17, 8, e191.
OpenUrl PubMed

[187] Mák G,

[188] Smith Fowler H,

[189] Leaver C,

[190] et al.

[191] 44.↵
Hernandez BF,
Morgan BJ,
Ish J,
et al.
(2018) Communication preferences and satisfaction of secure messaging among patients and providers in the military healthcare system. Mil Med 183, 11–12, e383–e390.
OpenUrl

[192] Hernandez BF,

[193] Morgan BJ,

[194] Ish J,

[195] et al.

[196] 45.↵
Rayner JE,
Jagirdar K,
Soyer PH,
McMeniman EK
(2017) Patients’ and doctors’ preferences for disclosing dermatology results. Australas J Dermatol 58, 4, e282–e283.
OpenUrl PubMed

[197] Rayner JE,

[198] Jagirdar K,

[199] Soyer PH,

[200] McMeniman EK

[201] 46.↵
Charron J,
Troude P,
de La Rochebrochard E,
et al.
(2022) Notification of STI test results by text messaging: why do patients refuse? Cross-sectional study in a Parisian sexual health centre. Int J STD AIDS 33, 3, 257–264.
OpenUrl PubMed

[202] Charron J,

[203] Troude P,

[204] de La Rochebrochard E,

[205] et al.

[206] 47.↵
Litchfield IJ,
Bentham LM,
Lilford RJ,
et al.
(2017) Adaption, implementation and evaluation of collaborative service improvements in the testing and result communication process in primary care from patient and staff perspectives: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 17, 615, 615.
OpenUrl PubMed

[207] Litchfield IJ,

[208] Bentham LM,

[209] Lilford RJ,

[210] et al.

[211] 48.↵
LaRocque JR,
Davis CL,
Tan TP,
et al.
(2015) Patient preferences for receiving reports of test results. J Am Board Fam Med 28, 6, 759–766.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[212] LaRocque JR,

[213] Davis CL,

[214] Tan TP,

[215] et al.

[216] 49.↵
Serrano KJ,
Yu M,
Riley WT,
et al.
(2016) Willingness to exchange health information via mobile devices: findings from a population-based survey. Ann Fam Med 14, 1, 34–40.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[217] Serrano KJ,

[218] Yu M,

[219] Riley WT,

[220] et al.

[221] 50.↵
Rexhepi H,
Moll J,
Huvila I,
Åhlfeldt RM
(2021) Do you want to receive bad news through your patient accessible electronic health record? A national survey on receiving bad news in an era of digital health. Health Informatics J 27, 3, 14604582211035817.
OpenUrl PubMed

[222] Rexhepi H,

[223] Moll J,

[224] Huvila I,

[225] Åhlfeldt RM

[226] 51.↵
Litchfield IJ,
Bentham LM,
Lilford RJ,
et al.
(2015) Patient perspectives on test result communication in primary care: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683929.

[227] Litchfield IJ,

[228] Bentham LM,

[229] Lilford RJ,

[230] et al.

[231] 52.↵
Giardina TD,
Baldwin J,
Nystrom DT,
et al.
(2018) Patient perceptions of receiving test results via online portals: a mixed-methods study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 25, 4, 440–446.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[232] Giardina TD,

[233] Baldwin J,

[234] Nystrom DT,

[235] et al.

[236] 53.↵
Zhang Z,
Citardi D,
Xing A,
et al.
(2020) Patient challenges and needs in comprehending laboratory test results: mixed methods study. J Med Internet Res 22, 12, e18725.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[237] Zhang Z,

[238] Citardi D,

[239] Xing A,

[240] et al.

[241] 54.↵
Watson J,
Whiting PF,
Salisbury C,
et al.
(2022) Blood tests in primary care: a qualitative study of communication and decision-making between doctors and patients. Health Expect 25, 5, 2453–2461.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[242] Watson J,

[243] Whiting PF,

[244] Salisbury C,

[245] et al.

[246] 55.↵
Kelman A,
Robinson CO,
Cochin E,
et al.
(2016) Communicating laboratory test results for rheumatoid factor: what do patients and physicians want? Patient Prefer Adherence 10, 2501–2517.
OpenUrl PubMed

[247] Kelman A,

[248] Robinson CO,

[249] Cochin E,

[250] et al.

[251] 56.↵
Nielsen NB,
Sekkal CK,
Yoganathan S
(2021) Online investigations on optimizing the Danish health portal sundhed.dk. Stud Health Technol Inform 286, 89–93.
OpenUrl PubMed

[252] Nielsen NB,

[253] Sekkal CK,

[254] Yoganathan S

[255] 57.↵
Litchfield I,
Bentham L,
Hill A,
et al.
(2015) Routine failures in the process for blood testing and the communication of results to patients in primary care in the UK: a qualitative exploration of patient and provider perspectives. BMJ Qual Saf 24, 681–690.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[256] Litchfield I,

[257] Bentham L,

[258] Hill A,

[259] et al.

[260] 58.↵
Dooley MD,
Burreal S,
Sweeny K
(2017) ‘We’ll call you when the results are in’: preferences for how medical test results are delivered. Patient Educ Couns 100, 2, 364–366.
OpenUrl PubMed

[261] Dooley MD,

[262] Burreal S,

[263] Sweeny K

[264] 59.↵
Zhang Z,
Kmoth L,
Luo X,
He Z
(2021) User-centered system design for communicating clinical laboratory test results: design and evaluation study. JMIR Hum Factors 8, 4, e26017.
OpenUrl

[265] Zhang Z,

[266] Kmoth L,

[267] Luo X,

[268] He Z

[269] 60.↵
Moerenhout T,
Devisch I,
Cooreman L,
et al.
(2021) Patients’ moral attitudes toward electronic health records: survey study with vignettes and statements. Health Informatics J 27, 1, 1460458220980039.
OpenUrl PubMed

[270] Moerenhout T,

[271] Devisch I,

[272] Cooreman L,

[273] et al.

[274] 61.↵
Giardina TD,
Callen J,
Georgiou A,
et al.
(2015) Releasing test results directly to patients: a multisite survey of physician perspectives. Patient Educ Couns 98, 6, 788–796.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[275] Giardina TD,

[276] Callen J,

[277] Georgiou A,

[278] et al.

[279] 62.↵
Litchfield IJ,
Bentham LM,
Lilford RJ,
Greenfield SM
(2014) Test result communication in primary care: clinical and office staff perspectives. Fam Pract 31, 5, 592–597.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[280] Litchfield IJ,

[281] Bentham LM,

[282] Lilford RJ,

[283] Greenfield SM

[284] 63.↵
Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
Solomon JB,
Scherer AM,
et al.
(2019) Primary care providers’ preferences and concerns regarding specific visual displays for returning hemoglobin A1c test results to patients. Med Decis Making 39, 7, 796–804.
OpenUrl PubMed

[285] Zikmund-Fisher BJ,

[286] Solomon JB,

[287] Scherer AM,

[288] et al.

[289] 64.↵
Nicholson BD,
Goyder CR,
Bankhead CR,
et al.
(2018) Responsibility for follow-up during the diagnostic process in primary care: a secondary analysis of International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership data. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X695813.

[290] Nicholson BD,

[291] Goyder CR,

[292] Bankhead CR,

[293] et al.

[294] 65.↵
Pillemer F,
Price RA,
Paone S,
et al.
(2016) Direct release of test results to patients increases patient engagement and utilization of care. PLoS One, DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0154743.

[295] Pillemer F,

[296] Price RA,

[297] Paone S,

[298] et al.

[299] 66.↵
Bowie P,
Halley L,
McKay J
(2014) Laboratory test ordering and results management systems: a qualitative study of safety risks identified by administrators in general practice. BMJ Open 4, e004245.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[300] Bowie P,

[301] Halley L,

[302] McKay J

[303] 67.↵
Menon S,
Smith MW,
Sittig DF,
et al.
(2014) How context affects electronic health record-based test result follow-up: a mixed-methods evaluation. BMJ Open 4, e005985.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[304] Menon S,

[305] Smith MW,

[306] Sittig DF,

[307] et al.

[308] 68.↵
Murphy DR,
Satterly T,
Rogith D,
et al.
(2019) Barriers and facilitators impacting reliability of the electronic health record-facilitated total testing process. Int J Med Inform 127, 102–108.
OpenUrl PubMed

[309] Murphy DR,

[310] Satterly T,

[311] Rogith D,

[312] et al.

[313] 69.↵
Gutiérrez E,
Iglesias MC,
Quezada-Juarez FJ,
et al.
(2018) Why individuals fail to collect HIV-test results: an exploratory study at a testing and counseling center in Mexico City. Rev Panam Salud Publica 42, e14.
OpenUrl PubMed

[314] Gutiérrez E,

[315] Iglesias MC,

[316] Quezada-Juarez FJ,

[317] et al.

[318] 70.↵
Clarity C,
Sarkar U,
Lee J,
et al.
(2017) Clinician perspectives on the management of abnormal subcritical tests in an urban academic safety-net health care system. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 43, 10, 517–523.
OpenUrl PubMed

[319] Clarity C,

[320] Sarkar U,

[321] Lee J,

[322] et al.

[323] 71.↵
Rogith D,
Satterly T,
Singh H,
et al.
(2020) Application of human factors methods to understand missed follow-up of abnormal test results. Appl Clin Inform 11, 5, 692–698.
OpenUrl PubMed

[324] Rogith D,

[325] Satterly T,

[326] Singh H,

[327] et al.

[328] 72.↵
Litchfield I,
Bentham L,
Lilford R,
et al.
(2015) Test result communication in primary care: a survey of current practice. BMJ Qual Saf 24, 691–699.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[329] Litchfield I,

[330] Bentham L,

[331] Lilford R,

[332] et al.

[333] 73.↵
Menon S,
Murphy DR,
Singh H,
et al.
(2016) Workarounds and test results follow-up in electronic health record-based primary care. Appl Clin Inform 7, 2, 543–559.
OpenUrl PubMed

[334] Menon S,

[335] Murphy DR,

[336] Singh H,

[337] et al.

[338] 74.↵
Smith MW,
Hughes AM,
Brown C,
et al.
(2019) Test results management and distributed cognition in electronic health record-enabled primary care. Health Informatics J 25, 4, 1549–1562.
OpenUrl PubMed

[339] Smith MW,

[340] Hughes AM,

[341] Brown C,

[342] et al.

[343] 75.↵
Singh H,
Spitzmueller C,
Petersen NJ,
et al.
(2013) Primary care practitioners’ views on test result management in EHR-enabled health systems: a national survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 20, 4, 727–773.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[344] Singh H,

[345] Spitzmueller C,

[346] Petersen NJ,

[347] et al.

[348] 76.↵
De Vries AMM,
Gholamrezaee MM,
Verdonck-de Leeuw IM,
et al.
(2017) Patient satisfaction and alliance as a function of the physician’s self-regulation, the physician’s stress, and the content of consultation in cancer care. Psycho-Oncology 26, 7, 927–934.
OpenUrl PubMed

[349] De Vries AMM,

[350] Gholamrezaee MM,

[351] Verdonck-de Leeuw IM,

[352] et al.

[353] 77.↵
Zikmund-Fisher BJ,
Scherer AM,
Witteman HO,
et al.
(2018) Effect of harm anchors in visual displays of test results on patient perceptions of urgency about near-normal values: experimental study. J Med Internet Res 20, 3, e98.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[354] Zikmund-Fisher BJ,

[355] Scherer AM,

[356] Witteman HO,

[357] et al.

[358] 78.↵
Montenegro RE,
Dori-Hacohen G
(2020) Morality in sugar talk: presenting blood glucose levels in routine diabetes medical visits. Soc Sci Med 253, 112925.
OpenUrl PubMed

[359] Montenegro RE,

[360] Dori-Hacohen G

[361] 79.↵
Gotlieb R,
Praska C,
Hendrickson MA,
et al.
(2022) Accuracy in patient understanding of common medical phrases. JAMA Netw Open 5, 11, e2242972.
OpenUrl CrossRef

[362] Gotlieb R,

[363] Praska C,

[364] Hendrickson MA,

[365] et al.

[366] 80.↵
Kackov S,
Simundic AM,
Gatti-Drnic A
(2013) Are patients well informed about the fasting requirements for laboratory blood testing? Biochem Med (Zagreb) 23, 3, 326–331.
OpenUrl PubMed

[367] Kackov S,

[368] Simundic AM,

[369] Gatti-Drnic A

[370] 81.↵
Ammenwerth E,
Neyer S,
Hörbst A,
et al.
(2021) Adult patient access to electronic health records. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2, 2, CD012707.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[371] Ammenwerth E,

[372] Neyer S,

[373] Hörbst A,

[374] et al.

[375] 82.↵
Williamson S,
Patterson J,
Crosby R,
et al.
(2019) Communication of cancer screening results by letter, telephone or in person: a mixed methods systematic review of the effect on attendee anxiety, understanding and preferences. Prev Med Rep 13, 189–195.
OpenUrl PubMed

[376] Williamson S,

[377] Patterson J,

[378] Crosby R,

[379] et al.

[380] 83.↵
Schubbe D,
Scalia P,
Yen RW,
et al.
(2020) Using pictures to convey health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. Patient Educ Couns 103, 10, 1935–1960.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[381] Schubbe D,

[382] Scalia P,

[383] Yen RW,

[384] et al.

[385] 84.↵
Blease CR,
Kharko A,
Dong Z,
et al.
(2024) Experiences and opinions of general practitioners with patient online record access: an online survey in England. BMJ Open 14, e078158.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[386] Blease CR,

[387] Kharko A,

[388] Dong Z,

[389] et al.

Main menu

User menu

Search

Communicating blood test results in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

Method

Search strategy

Study selection

Data extraction

Quality assessment of included studies

Eligibility criteria

Data synthesis and integration

Patient and public involvement

Results

Summary of included studies

Quality of included studies

Qualitative

Quantitative

Convergent synthesis

Objective 1: What interventions can be used to improve communication of blood test results to patients and carers in primary care?

Objective 2: Patients’ needs and preferences

Mode of communication preferences (22 studies)

Portals (online access)

Text or short message service (SMS) messaging

Telephone or face to face

Information needs and preferences (13 studies)

Preferences for timing of test communication (nine studies)

Preferences for level of access to results (nine studies)

Objective 3: Clinicians’ needs and preferences

Communicating result information to patients (six studies)

Mode and timing of communication (nine studies)

Communication via healthcare staff (two studies)

Objective 4: Barriers and facilitators

Practical issues (14 studies)

Responsibility for test result communication (nine studies)

Workarounds (five studies)

Alerts and notifications (four studies)

Clinician behaviour (five studies)

Display format and content of results (15 studies)

Discussion

Summary

Strengths and limitations

Comparison with existing literature

Implications for research and practice

Acknowledgments

Notes

Funding

Ethical approval

Provenance

Competing interests

Discuss this article:

References

In this issue

Citation Manager Formats

Jump to section

Keywords

More in this TOC Section

Related Articles

Cited By...

NAVIGATE

RCGP

MY ACCOUNT

NEWS AND UPDATES

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

CUSTOMER SERVICES

CONTRIBUTE

CONTACT US