A Method to Quantify Residents’ Jargon Use During Counseling of Standardized Patients About Cancer Screening

  • Lindsay Deuster
  • Stephanie Christopher
  • Jodi Donovan
  • Michael FarrellEmail author
Original Article



Jargon is a barrier to effective patient-physician communication, especially when health literacy is low or the topic is complicated. Jargon is addressed by medical schools and residency programs, but reducing jargon usage by the many physicians already in practice may require the population-scale methods used in Quality Improvement.


To assess the amount of jargon used and explained during discussions about prostate or breast cancer screening. Effective communication is recommended before screening for prostate or breast cancer because of the large number of false-positive results and the possible complications from evaluation or treatment.


Primary care internal medicine residents.


Transcripts of 86 conversations between residents and standardized patients were abstracted using an explicit-criteria data dictionary. Time lag from jargon words to explanations was measured using “statements,” each of which contains one subject and one predicate.


Duplicate abstraction revealed reliability κ = 0.92. The average number of unique jargon words per transcript was 19.6 (SD = 6.1); the total jargon count was 53.6 (SD = 27.2). There was an average of 4.5 jargon-explanations per transcript (SD = 2.3). The ratio of explained to total jargon was 0.15. When jargon was explained, the average time lag from the first usage to the explanation was 8.4 statements (SD = 13.4).


The large number of jargon words and low number of explanations suggest that many patients may not understand counseling about cancer screening tests. Educational programs and faculty development courses should continue to discourage jargon usage. The methods presented here may be useful for feedback and quality improvement efforts.


Cancer Screening Health Literacy Breast Cancer Screening Standardize Patient Prostate Cancer Screening 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Lindsay Deuster was supported by a training grant from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (T35-HL72483-24). Dr. Farrell was supported in part by grant K01HL072530 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. An earlier version of this paper was presented as a poster at the 2007 annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. The authors are grateful to Dr. Jeffrey Stein for assistance with educational workshops and transcript proofreading, and to Dr. Richard Frankel for very helpful critique and suggestions about the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.


  1. 1.
    Donabedian A. The quality of care. How can it be assessed? JAMA. 1988;260(12):1743–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roter DL, Hall JA, eds. Doctors Talking with Patients, Patients Talking with Doctors: Improving Communication in Medical Visits. Auburn House: Westport, Connecticut; 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coulehan JL, Block MR. The medical interview: mastering skills for clinical practice. 5th ed. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Co.; 2006:409. xix.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Makoul G. Essential elements of communication in medical encounters: the Kalamazoo consensus statement. Acad Med. 2001;76(4):390–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer A, Kindig D, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. National Academies Press: Washington, DC; 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith RC, Marshall-Dorsey AA, Osborn GG, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for teaching patient-centered interviewing. Patient Educ Couns. 2000;39(1):27–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stillman PL, Sabers DL, Redfield DL. The use of paraprofessionals to teach interviewing skills. Pediatrics. 1976;57(5):769–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Fourth ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company: 2006.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Academy of Family Physicians. Summary of AAFP Recommendations for Clinical Preventive Services, Revision 6.4. 2007 [accessed 06/04/2008]; Available from:
  10. 10.
    American College of Physicians. Screening for prostate cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(6):480–4.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    American Urological Association. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) best practice policy. Oncology. 2000;14(2):267–72. 277–8, 280.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Eyre HJ. Cancer screening in the United States, 2007: a review of current guidelines, practices, and prospects. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):90–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):915–6.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Veterans Health Administration, ed. VHA Handbook 1120.2 Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Program. Department of Veterans Affairs: Washington, DC; 1999.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Qaseem A, Snow V, Sherif K, Aronson M, Weiss KB, Owens DK. Screening mammography for women 40 to 49 years of age: a clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(7):511–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ransohoff DF, Harris RP. Lessons from the mammography screening controversy: can we improve the debate? Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):1029–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Donovan J, Deuster L, Christopher SA, Farrell, MH. Residents’ precautionary discussion of emotions during communication about cancer screening, poster at 2007 annual meeting of the Society for General Internal Medicine, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Donovan JJ, Farrell MH, Deuster L, Christopher SA. “Precautionary empathy” by child health providers after newborn screening. Poster at International Conference on Communication and Health Care, Charleston, SC; 2007.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Farrell MH, Deuster L, Donovan J, Christopher SA. Pediatric residents’ use of jargon during counseling about newborn genetic screening results. Pediatrics, in press, August 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Farrell MH, Kuruvilla PE. Assessment of understanding: A quality indicator for communication after newborn genetic screening. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;2(3):199–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Farrell MH, La Pean A, Ladouceur L. Content of communication by pediatric residents after newborn genetic screening. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1492–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    La Pean A, Farrell MH. Initially misleading communication of carrier results after newborn genetic screening. Pediatrics. 2005;116(6):1499–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bylund CL, Brown RF, di Ciccone BL, Levin TT, Gueguen JA, Hill C, Kissane DW. Training faculty to facilitate communication skills training: Development and evaluation of a workshop. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70(3):430–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lang F, Everett K, McGowen R, Bennard B. Faculty development in communication skills instruction: insights from a longitudinal program with “real-time feedback”. Acad Med. 2000;75(12):1222–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Braddock CH, Edwards KA, Hasenberg NM, Laidley TL, Levinson W. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Graber DA. The Theoretical Base: Schema Theory. In: Graber DA, ed. Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York: Longman; 1988:27–31.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Miller GA. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(2):343–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seel N. Mental Models in Learning Situations. Adv Psychol. 2006;138:85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    White JD, Carlston DE. Consequences of Schemata for Attention, Impressions, and Recall in Complex Social Interactions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1983;45(3):538–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roter D. Roter Interaction Analysis System Coding Manual. [accessed 06/04/2008]; Available from:
  31. 31.
    Feinstein A. Clinical Epidemiology: The Architecture of Clinical Research. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1985.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stedman TL. Stedman’s medical dictionary. 28Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 20061 v. (various pagings).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Farrell MH. R01 HL086691, Improvement of communication process and outcomes after newborn genetic screening. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute: Medical College of Wisconsin: 2008.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Castro CM, Wilson C, Wang F, Schillinger D. Babel babble: physicians’ use of unclarified medical jargon with patients. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(Suppl 1):S85–S95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Keselman A, Tse T, Crowell J, Browne A, Ngo L, Zeng Q. Assessing consumer health vocabulary familiarity: an exploratory study. J Med Internet Res. 2007;9(1):e5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jencks SF, Huff ED, Cuerdon T. Change in the Quality of Care Delivered to Medicare Beneficiaries, 1998–1999 to 2000–2001. JAMA. 2003;289(3):305–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lindsay Deuster
    • 1
  • Stephanie Christopher
    • 1
  • Jodi Donovan
    • 1
  • Michael Farrell
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Center for Patient Care and Outcomes ResearchMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, and Population Health-BioethicsCenter for Patient Care and Outcomes ResearchMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations