How Do Patients and Otolaryngologists Define Dizziness?

OBJECTIVE

To assess for differences in how patients and otolaryngologists define the term dizziness.

METHODS

Between June 2020 and December 2022, otolaryngology clinicians and consecutive patients at 5 academic otolaryngology institutions across the United States were asked to define the term "dizziness" by completing a semantics-based questionnaire containing 20 common descriptors of the term within 5 symptom domains (imbalance-related, lightheadedness-related, motion-related, vision-related, and pain-related). The primary outcome was differences between patient and clinician perceptions of dizzy-related symptoms. Secondary outcomes included differences among patient populations by geographic location.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 271 patients and 31 otolaryngologists. Patients and otolaryngologists selected 7.7 ± 3.5 and 7.1 ± 4.3 symptoms, respectively. Most patients (266, 98.2%) selected from more than 1 domain and 17 (6.3%) patients identified symptoms from all 5 domains. Patients and clinicians were equally likely to define dizziness using terms from the imbalance (difference, -2.3%; 95% CI, -13.2%, 8.6%), lightheadedness (-14.1%; -29.2%, 1.0%), and motion-related (9.4; -0.3, 19.1) domains. Patients were more likely to include terms from the vision-related (23.6%; 10.5, 36.8) and pain-related (18.2%; 10.3%, 26.1%) domains. There were minor variations in how patients defined dizziness based on geographic location.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and otolaryngologists commonly described dizziness using symptoms related to imbalance, lightheadedness, and motion. Patients were more likely to use vision or pain-related terms. Understanding of these semantic differences may enable more effective patient-clinician communication.

Are you congested? A comparison of definitions between otolaryngologists and their patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess for differences of intended meaning in the description of congestion-related symptoms among otolaryngology patients and clinicians.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2020 and October 2022, a questionnaire consisting of 16 common descriptors of congestion-related symptoms within four domains (obstructive-related, pressure-related, mucus-related, and other symptoms) was completed by patients and otolaryngologists at five tertiary otolaryngology practices. The primary outcome was to assess differences in patient and clinician perceptions of congestion-related symptoms. Differences based on geographic location was a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 349 patients and 40 otolaryngologists participated. Patients selected a median of 6.8 (standard deviation [SD] 3.0) terms compared with 4.0 (SD 1.6) terms for otolaryngologists (p < 0.001). Otolaryngologists were more likely to select obstruction-related symptoms (difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.8%, 8.9%). Patients were more likely to describe congestion using pressure-related (-43.7%; -58.9%, -28.5%), mucus-related (-43.5%; -59.3%, -27.8%), and other symptoms (-44.2; -51.3%, -37.1%) compared with otolaryngologists. There were no significant differences identified based on geographic location with regard to symptom domains on multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

There are differences between otolaryngologists and their patients in the interpretation of the symptoms of congestion. Clinicians tended to have a narrower interpretation of congestion that was limited to the obstruction-related symptom domain, while patients defined congestion more broadly. This has important counseling and communication implications for the clinician.

Layperson Perception of Reflux-Related Symptoms

Objective

To assess for differences of intended meaning in the description of reflux-related symptoms among otolaryngology patients and clinicians.

Study Design

Cross-sectional survey-based study.

Setting

Five tertiary, academic otolaryngology practices.

Methods

Between June 2020 and July 2022, a questionnaire consisting of 20 common descriptors of reflux-related symptoms within four domains (throat-, chest-, stomach-, and sensory-related symptoms) was completed by patients. Attending otolaryngologists at five academic medical centers then completed the same survey. The primary outcome was to assess differences in patient and clinician perceptions of reflux-related symptoms. Differences based on geographic location was a secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 324 patients and 27 otolaryngologists participated. Patients selected a median of six terms compared with 10.5 for otolaryngologists (p < .001). Otolaryngologists were more likely to select sensory symptoms (difference: 35.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.2%, 52.4%), throat-related symptoms (32.4%; 21.2, 43.6%), and chest-related symptoms (12.4%; 8.8, 15.9). Otolaryngologists and patients were equally likely to consider stomach symptoms as related to reflux (4.0%, -3.7%, 11.7%). No significant differences were identified based on geographic location.

Conclusion

There are differences between otolaryngologists and their patients in the interpretation of the symptoms of reflux. Patients tended to have a narrower interpretation of reflux with symptoms primarily limited to classic stomach-related symptoms, while clinicians tended to have a broader definition of reflux that included extra-esophageal manifestations of disease. This has important counseling implications for the clinician, as patients presenting with reflux symptoms may not comprehend the relationship of those symptoms to reflux disease.

[Gaining consensus on key terms in community health activities: A national survey using the Delphi method]

Objectives　The purpose of this study was to define the terminology used in community health activities by systematically establishing agreement among public health nurses and related professionals, to aid them in effectively cooperating with other professionals.Methods　We extracted the major terms described in "Guidelines for Public Health Nurses' Activities in the Region," which was issued by the Director of Health Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare; and conducted 2 iterations on the proposed definition of the terms using the Delphi method. The survey targeted 800 stakeholders from the following 4 professions: public health nurses in managerial positions in local governments, clerical staff in local governments, public health nursing professors at educational institutions, and social welfare council staff. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement with the definition of the terms using a 4-point Likert scale. We tallied the answers indicating "I agree" or "Mostly agree." A 70% term agreement was considered "conformed." A free text box for each proposed definition was also available so that respondents could share their opinions and offer alternatives.Results　The first survey received 231 responses. The conformity of their definitions ranged from 83.9%-96.9% (mean=91.5%). Although all definitions exceeded the consensus level, we examined their adequacy with reference to the definitions and opinions from the free text. Various opinions were obtained from those engaged in each occupation. The second round included 117 consenting stakeholders from the first survey, yielding 90 responses. Their degree of conformity ranged from 86.7%-98.9% (mean=94.6%). Therefore, we determined the definitions had reached a robust agreement. We revised the definitions of some terms with reference to the opinions from the free texts and finalized the definitions. Finally, we defined 23 terms-such as region, community diagnosis, and policy.Conclusion　All terms had a conformity of more than 85%, thus bringing into alignment those community health terms that had varying interpretations among related occupations earlier. By including the opinions of those from the related occupations who collaborate with public health nurses, the definitions of these terms could be established and shared. These definitions can be used in public health nursing practice, education, service, and research-among those in involved these related occupations.

A Dizzying Complaint: Investigating the Intended Meaning of Dizziness Among Patients and Providers

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

To assess for semantic differences regarding the definition of dizziness among otolaryngology patients, otolaryngologists, and non-otolaryngologist providers.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

Between March and May 2020, a survey consisting of 20 common descriptors for dizziness within five domains (lightheadedness, motion sensitivity, imbalance, vision complaints, and pain) was completed by patients at two outpatient otolaryngology clinics. Surveys were subsequently obtained from otolaryngology and non-otolaryngology providers attending a multidisciplinary dizziness lecture. The primary outcome measure was to assess for differences in definition of dizziness between patients and providers. Secondary outcome measures included assessing differences between otolaryngologists and non-otolaryngologists.

RESULTS

About 221 patients and 100 providers participated. Patients selected a median of 7 terms compared to 8 for providers (P = .375), although providers had a larger overall distribution of number of terms selected (P = .038). Patients were more likely than providers to define dizziness according to the following domains: lightheadedness (difference 15.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5%-25.3%), vision complaints (difference 21.6%, 95% CI 12.0%-29.6%), and pain (difference 11.5%, 95% CI 4.7%-17.1%). Providers were more likely to define dizziness according to the motion sensitivity domain (difference 13.8%, 95% CI 6.8%-19.6%). Otolaryngology and non-otolaryngology providers defined dizziness similarly across symptom domains.

CONCLUSION

Although patients and providers both view dizziness as imbalance, patients more commonly describe dizziness in the context of lightheadedness, vision complaints, and pain, whereas providers more frequently define dizziness according to motion sensitivity. These semantic differences create an additional barrier to effective patient-provider communication.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4. Laryngoscope, 131:E1443-E1449, 2021.

Plant intelligence: why, why not or where?

The concept of plant intelligence, as proposed by Anthony Trewavas, has raised considerable discussion. However, plant intelligence remains loosely defined; often it is either perceived as practically synonymous to Darwinian fitness, or reduced to a mere decorative metaphor. A more strict view can be taken, emphasizing necessary prerequisites such as memory and learning, which requires clarifying the definition of memory itself. To qualify as memories, traces of past events have to be not only stored, but also actively accessed. We propose a criterion for eliminating false candidates of possible plant intelligence phenomena in this stricter sense: an "intelligent" behavior must involve a component that can be approximated by a plausible algorithmic model involving recourse to stored information about past states of the individual or its environment. Re-evaluation of previously presented examples of plant intelligence shows that only some of them pass our test.