Research

Patient understanding of commonly used oral medicine terminology

Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Introduction Communication within the doctor-patient relationship is complex due to a variety of reasons; a patient's understanding may not correspond with the clinician's vocabulary, resulting in misunderstanding, anxiety and ill-informed decision making. We investigated the understanding of terminology commonly used in oral and maxillofacial surgery and oral medicine clinics.

Methods We investigated patients' understanding using a questionnaire-based study in the out-patient setting. Age, gender, first language and highest educational level were recorded. The questionnaire included multiple choice questions regarding patients' understanding of words as well as asking patients to define certain terms. Vocabulary included 'ulcer', 'blister', 'cancer', 'malignant' and 'benign'.

Results and conclusions Many patients have difficulty in understanding and explaining commonly used terminology. 'Blister' was the most commonly understood term, while 'benign' and 'lesion' were the least well understood. 'Tumour' was mistakenly thought of as synonymous with 'malignancy' by over a third of patients. Understanding was better among those for whom English was their first language. It is essential that all clinicians modify their language appropriately during consultations in order to deliver information in a comprehensive manner, to educate patients on their condition thus enabling informed decision making by patients.

  • Subscribe to British Dental Journal for full access:

    $690

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    , . Patient participation in decision-making. Soc Sci Med 1998; 47: 329–339.

  2. 2.

    , , , . Using a question prompt list as a communication aid in advanced cancer care. J Oncol Pract 2014; 10: e137–e141.

  3. 3.

    . Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 1995; 152: 1423–1433.

  4. 4.

    , , , . Medical communication: do our patients understand? Am J Emerg Med 2000; 18: 764–766.

  5. 5.

    , , , . Patients and jargon: are we speaking the same language? J Clin Anesth 2008; 20: 343–346.

  6. 6.

    , , , , , . Patients' understanding of medical terminology used in the breast clinic. Breast 2013; 22: 836–838.

  7. 7.

    , , . Gaps in doctor-patient communication I. Doctor-patient interaction and patient satisfaction. Pediatrics 1968; 42: 855–871.

  8. 8.

    , , . Doctor-patient communication and patient satisfaction: a review. Fam Pract 1998; 15: 480–492.

  9. 9.

    , . Physician communication and patient adherence to treatment: a meta-analysis. Med Care 2009; 47: 826–834.

  10. 10.

    . Aphthous ulceration. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 165–172.

  11. 11.

    National Literacy Trust. Adutl literacy. Available at (accessed November 2017).

  12. 12.

    , , , , . Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns 1996; 27: 33–39.

  13. 13.

    , , , , . Literacy and health outcomes. J Gen Int Med 2004; 19: 1228–1239.

  14. 14.

    Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census: Quick Statistics for England and Wales, March 2011. 2013. Available at: (accessed November 2017).

  15. 15.

    , , , . Do professional interpreters improve clinical care for patients with limited English proficiency? A systematic review of the literature. Health Serv Res 2007; 42: 727–754.

  16. 16.

    , , . Nomenclature and classification of potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa. J Oral Pathol Med 2007; 36: 575–580.

  17. 17.

    , , , . Information about oral cancer on the Internet: our patients cannot understand it. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2015; 53: 393–395.

  18. 18.

    , , et al. The impact of health information on the internet on the physician-patient relationship: patient perceptions. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1727–1734.

  19. 19.

    , . Head and neck cancer information on the internet: type, accuracy and content. Oral Oncol 2009; 45: 675–677.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The administrative and nursing team who distributed and collected the questionnaires.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, King's College Hospital, London, UK

    • E. Hayes
    • , R. Dua
    • , E. Yeung
    •  & K. Fan

Authors

  1. Search for E. Hayes in:

  2. Search for R. Dua in:

  3. Search for E. Yeung in:

  4. Search for K. Fan in:

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Hayes.

Refereed Paper