115 - Jargon Be Gone - Patient Preference in Doctor Communication Style

Poster Number: 115
Publication Number: 115.410

Katherine A. Allen, University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Rachael Gotlieb, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Michael B. Pitt, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Victoria Charpentier, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Jordan Marmet, University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Emily Hause, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Corinne Praska, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Scott Lunos, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States; Marissa A. Hendrickson, University of Minnesota Medical School, Minneapolis, MN, United States

Background: Studies have shown that healthcare providers often communicate with medical jargon that patients do not understand, but less is known about how patients prefer their doctors to communicate. Some have suggested that patients may find comfort in their doctors “sounding smart.”

Objective: We wished to determine the general public’s preference between two doctors sharing equivalent information using medical terminology versus plain language.

Design/Methods: We surveyed attendees at the 2021 Minnesota State Fair over 3 days to capture a cross-section of the public. Adults without medical or nursing training volunteered to take a survey via iPad. Respondents were directed to imagine they were at a doctor’s office with chest pain and presented with two scenarios sharing the same information: one using medical terminology and one using plain language without jargon. They were then asked which doctor they would prefer to have as their doctor. They were also asked how likely they would be to tell the doctor if they didn’t understand a word or phrase they’d said (1: very likely to 4: very unlikely).

To assess if preferences varied between written and spoken delivery, we randomized participants to receive either a written version or an audio version, with an audio recording of a voice actor reading the statement.

We used descriptive statistics to summarize the survey questions. Demographics, doctor preference and “likelihood to speak up” were compared between written and verbal groups using a t-test for age, Fisher’s exact tests for categorical variables and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test for the Likert scale question. We used logistic regression models to examine the association of doctor preference and “likelihood to speak up” with demographics.

Results: There were 205 respondents to the survey (102 written, 103 audio). Average age was 44; 56% were female, and 61% had a bachelor’s degree or higher. There were no statistically significant differences in demographics between those randomized to the written or audio surveys. Overall, 91% of the participants preferred the doctor who spoke without jargon; there was no difference in preference between the written vs audio versions (93 vs. 88%; p=0.34). Most respondents said they were very likely (63%) or somewhat likely (27%) to tell their doctor they didn’t understand a word or phrase. There were no significant predictors of doctor preference by age, gender, education, or likelihood to speak up.Conclusion(s): In a simulated patient encounter, more than 9 out of 10 patients preferred the doctor who communicated without medical jargon.