Dataset Information

Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.

ABSTRACT: Nearly two-thirds of cancer patients seek information about their diagnosis online. We assessed the readability of online patient education materials found on academic radiation oncology department Web sites to determine whether they adhered to guidelines suggesting that information be presented at a sixth-grade reading level.The Association of American Medical Colleges Web site was used to identify all academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. One-third of these department Web sites were selected for analysis using a random number generator. Both general information on radiation therapy and specific information regarding various radiation modalities were collected. To test the hypothesis that the readability of these online educational materials was written at the recommended grade level, a panel of 10 common readability tests was used. A composite grade level of readability was constructed using the 8 readability measures that provide a single grade-level output.A mean of 5605 words (range, 2058-12,837) from 30 department Web sites was collected. Using the composite grade level score, the overall mean readability level was determined to be 13.36 (12.83-13.89), corresponding to a collegiate reading level. This was significantly higher than the target sixth-grade reading level (middle school, t (29) = 27.41, P < .001).Online patient educational materials from academic radiation oncology Web sites are significantly more complex than recommended by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. To improve patients' comprehension of radiation therapy and its role in their treatment, our analysis suggests that the language used in online patient information should be simplified to communicate the information at a more appropriate level.

SUBMITTER: Rosenberg SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5219938 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan - Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.

Rosenberg Stephen A SA Francis David M DM Hullet Craig R CR Morris Zachary S ZS Brower Jeffrey V JV Anderson Bethany M BM Bradley Kristin A KA Bassetti Michael F MF Kimple Randall J RJ

Practical radiation oncology 20160801 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>Nearly two-thirds of cancer patients seek information about their diagnosis online. We assessed the readability of online patient education materials found on academic radiation oncology department Web sites to determine whether they adhered to guidelines suggesting that information be presented at a sixth-grade reading level.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>The Association of American Medical Colleges Web site was used to identify all academic radiation oncology departments in the ...[more]

PMID: 27663932

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAs a legal obligation, the Dutch government publishes online information about tobacco additives to make sure that it is publicly available. Little is known about the influence this website ("tabakinfo") has on visitors and how the website is evaluated by them.ObjectiveThis study assesses how visitors use the website and its effect on their knowledge, risk perception, attitude, and smoking behavior. The study will also assess how the website is evaluated by visitors using a sample of the Dutch general population, including smokers and nonsmokers.MethodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted, recruiting participants from an online panel. At baseline, participants (N=672) were asked to fill out an online questionnaire about tobacco additives. Next, participants were randomly allocated to either one of two experimental groups and invited to visit the website providing information about tobacco additives (either with or without a database containing product-specific information) or to a control group that had no access to the website. After 3 months, follow-up measurements took place.ResultsAt follow-up (n=492), no statistically significant differences were found for knowledge, risk perception, attitude, or smoking behavior between the intervention and control groups. Website visits were positively related to younger participants (B=-0.07, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.01; t11=-2.43, P=.02) and having a low risk perception toward tobacco additives (B=-0.32, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.02; t11=-2.07, P=.04). In comparison, having a lower education (B=-0.67, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.17; t11=-2.65, P=.01) was a significant predictor for making less use of the website. Furthermore, the website was evaluated less positively by smokers compared to nonsmokers (t324=-3.55, P<.001), and males compared to females (t324=-2.21, P=.02).ConclusionsThe website did not change perceptions of tobacco additives or smoking behavior. Further research is necessary to find out how online information can be used to effectively communication about the risks of tobacco additives.Trial registrationNederlands Trial Register NTR4620; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4620 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oW7w4Gnj).

Project description:BackgroundThe National Institute of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses computerised-adaptive testing to reduce survey burden and improve sensitivity. PROMIS is being used across medical and surgical disciplines but has not been studied in orthopaedic oncology.Questions/purposesThe aim of the study was to compare PROMIS measures with upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) by assessing the following: (1) responder burden, (2) correlation between scores and (3) floor/ceiling effects.Patients and methodsThis cross-sectional trial analysed all 97 adult patients treated surgically for a bone or soft tissue tumour at a tertiary institution between November 2015 and March 2016. TESS (UE or LE) and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference and Depression) surveys were administered preoperatively. Pearson correlations between each PROMIS domain and TESS were calculated, as were floor/ceiling effects of each outcome measure.Results(1) Completion of three PROMIS questionnaires required a mean total of 16.8 (+/- 5.8 standard deviation) questions, compared with 31 and 32 questions for the LE and UE TESS questionnaires, respectively. (2) The PROMIS Physical Function scores demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the LE TESS (r = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.91; p < 0.001) and moderate positive correlation with the UE TESS (r = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a weak negative correlation with both the LE TESS (r = -0.38; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.10; p = 0.010) and with UE TESS (r = -0.38; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.01; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Pain Interference scores demonstrated a strong negative correlation with the LE TESS (r = -0.71; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.52; p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with the UE TESS (r = -0.62; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.30; p = 0.001). (3) The UE TESS had a range of scores from 16 to 100 with a 27% ceiling effect and no floor effect, and the LE TESS had a range from 10 to 98 with no floor or ceiling effect. There was no floor or ceiling effect for any PROMIS measures.ConclusionsIn an orthopaedic oncology population, the PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference scores correlate with the TESS and have the benefit of reduced survey burden and ceiling effect. The PROMIS Depression scores may provide additional information regarding patient outcomes not captured by the TESS.Level of evidenceLevel III.The translational potential of this articlePatient reported outcome measures asses patients' symptoms, function and health-related quality of life and are designed to capture more clinical information than can be gathered by objective medial testing alone. As reimbursements and the understanding of patient outcomes are becoming tied to performance on PROMIS measures, it is an important step to establish how PROMIS measures correlate and compare to traditional legacy measures.

Project description:Modern healthcare is becoming increasingly technologized, knowledge-intensive, and specialized, which has consequences for communication between patients and practitioners in clinical encounters. Health information is increasingly accessible to patients through online resources. The objective of this paper is to provide an overview of existing studies that address how patients communicate with practitioners about online health information and to identify the key topics raised in these studies. With the concept of eHealth literacy as its point of departure, this paper specifically highlights the eHealth literacy topic of how patients comprehend, appraise and communicate online health information before and during the encounter with the healthcare professionals. In the literature search, we focus on qualitative studies that consider patients' and/or practitioners' reflections on online health information. We searched PUBMED, SCOPUS and Web of Science to capture research from various fields. Sixteen studies were included that met the following criteria: Qualitative study, focus on patient-practitioner communication, eHealth literacy and online information. The results show that the vast majority of studies were based on qualitative interviews, addressing patients' and practitioners' perspectives. Key topics in studies addressing patient perspectives were: reasons for seeking online information; calibrating understanding of online information with the practitioner; and barriers to discussing online information with practitioners. Key topics raised in studies focusing on practitioners were: trust in the patient and the online health information he/she presented as well as strategies to respond to patients who referred to online health information. The review highlights the need for further qualitative studies, preferably observational studies from authentic clinical communication situations, in order to capture how patients and practitioners communicate about online health information.

Dataset Information

Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.

Publications

Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets