A notification appears on a smartphone: “Your test result is now available.” For millions of patients, that message marks a major change in the traditional rhythm of medical care. Instead of waiting for a doctor or nurse to call, people can now open a patient portal and see laboratory values, imaging reports, and other clinical information almost immediately. New research suggests, however, that access to results does not guarantee understanding—and that the patients most likely to view their results quickly are not necessarily the patients best equipped to interpret them.
A study led by researchers at New York University’s School of Global Public Health found that 68.6 percent of US adults who received a medical test result in the previous year viewed it before hearing from a health care provider. The analysis, published in JAMA Network Open, examined how patients’ decisions to open results and their ability to understand them varied according to factors such as age, income, digital health literacy, chronic illness, geography, and experiences communicating with medical professionals.
The findings emerge from the digital-access requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act, a US law designed in part to make electronic health information more readily available to patients. Under the policy, hospitals and clinics generally release test results to patient portals as soon as they become available, rather than holding them until a clinician has reviewed the information with the patient. The change was intended to give people greater control over their health data, but it also altered the order in which information and explanation arrive. A patient may now read a radiology report or see an abnormal laboratory value before a professional has provided context.
“The Cures Act has restructured the traditional pathway between the release of a test result to a patient-clinician discussion,” said Jemar Bather, assistant professor of biostatistics at NYU School of Global Public Health and lead author of the study. “We wanted to understand whether a patient’s probability of accessing test results—and understanding of them—varies based on sociodemographic characteristics, health status, patient-centered communication, and digital health literacy.”
The researchers analyzed responses from 4,982 adults who participated in the 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey, a nationally representative survey collected by the National Institutes of Health. All of the respondents had access to electronic medical records and reported receiving a test result during the preceding year. When weighted to reflect the US population, the sample represented nearly 175 million adults. Because the study used survey data collected at one point in time, it can identify patterns and associations but cannot prove that any single characteristic directly caused a patient to view or understand a result.
People who opened their results before hearing from a provider were more likely to be older and female, to have higher incomes, and to live with multiple chronic health conditions. They also tended to report stronger digital health literacy and more frequent use of social media for health-related information. Digital health literacy refers to the ability to find, access, evaluate, and use health information through digital tools. It includes more than knowing how to log into a portal: patients must also recognize medical terminology, judge the reliability of explanations, understand uncertainty, and decide when professional advice is needed.
Among those who viewed their results immediately, comprehension was uneven. Only 6.6 percent said they understood the results poorly, but 26.8 percent reported understanding them fairly well, 31.7 percent understood them well, and 34.9 percent understood them very well. These categories reflect patients’ self-assessments rather than an objective test of medical knowledge. Even so, the distribution indicates that a sizable minority may be reading important clinical information without feeling fully confident about what it means, whether a result is serious, or what action should follow.
The least confident patients were more likely to live in the Midwest or South and to report having experienced discrimination in medical care. By contrast, higher digital health literacy was associated with better understanding. Patient-centered communication showed a similar relationship. Respondents who felt that clinicians explained information in ways they could understand and involved them in decisions were more likely to report comprehending their test results. The pattern suggests that portal design cannot be separated from the broader relationship between patients and health professionals: an understandable result is not merely a technical product, but part of an ongoing communication process.
The researchers say health systems have largely focused on delivering data, while devoting less attention to how that data is translated into useful meaning. A numerical value may appear alongside a reference range without explaining why it was ordered, how much variation is normal, or whether the result should be interpreted alongside symptoms, medications, previous measurements, or other tests. An imaging report may contain precise clinical language that is familiar to specialists but confusing or alarming to the person being examined. Tools that summarize results in plain language, explain technical terms, show trends over time, and allow patients to submit follow-up questions could help bridge the gap. Artificial intelligence may eventually support some of these functions, although any automated explanation would need safeguards, clinical oversight, and clear warnings that it is not a diagnosis.
“Health systems give you your data, but that does not mean that they put a lot of effort into making the information easy to understand on your own,” said study author José Pagán, professor and chair of NYU’s Department of Public Health Policy and Management. “Health systems and online patient portal developers should look for innovative ways to improve how they communicate—for instance, using AI to summarize test results in plain language and provide easy means for follow-up questions.” The authors emphasize that expanded access remains valuable, but access without interpretation can leave some patients behind. As immediate release becomes standard practice, the next challenge may be ensuring that every patient receives not only a result, but also the context and support needed to understand it.
Subject of Research: Patient access to and comprehension of immediately released medical test results
Article Title: Patient Viewing and Comprehension of Immediately Released Test Results
News Publication Date: 18-Aug-2026
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.30698
References: Bather J, Pagán JA, Goodman M, et al. “Patient Viewing and Comprehension of Immediately Released Test Results.” JAMA Network Open. Published 18 August 2026. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.30698
Keywords: patient portals, electronic health records, medical test results, digital health literacy, patient-centered communication, health care access, health information technology, 21st Century Cures Act, medical communication, health equity
