Dataset Information

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs).

Methods

Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level.

Results

Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels.

Conclusions

Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

SUBMITTER: Fajardo MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6595308 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

Fajardo Michael Anthony MA Weir Kristie Rebecca KR Bonner Carissa C Gnjidic Danijela D Jansen Jesse J

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20190507 7

<h4>Aims</h4>To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs).<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a system ...[more]

PMID: 30848837

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association.MethodsUsing an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non-patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM.ResultsA total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association.ConclusionsLack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).

Project description:BackgroundPatient education materials (PEMs) can be vital sources of information for the general population. However, despite American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommendations to make PEMs easier to read for patients with low health literacy, they often do not adhere to these recommendations. The readability of online PEMs in the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) field, in particular, has not been thoroughly investigated.ObjectiveThe study sampled online OB/GYN PEMs and aimed to examine (1) agreeability across traditional readability measures (TRMs), (2) adherence of online PEMs to AMA and NIH recommendations, and (3) whether the readability level of online PEMs varied by web-based source and medical topic. This study is not a scoping review, rather, it focused on scoring the readability of OB/GYN PEMs using the traditional measures to add empirical evidence to the literature.MethodsA total of 1576 online OB/GYN PEMs were collected via 3 major search engines. In total 93 were excluded due to shorter content (less than 100 words), yielding 1483 PEMs for analysis. Each PEM was scored by 4 TRMs, including Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Gunning fog index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Dale-Chall. The PEMs were categorized based on publication source and medical topic by 2 research team members. The readability scores of the categories were compared statistically.ResultsResults indicated that the 4 TRMs did not agree with each other, leading to the use of an averaged readability (composite) score for comparison. The composite scores across all online PEMs were not normally distributed and had a median at the 11th grade. Governmental PEMs were the easiest to read amongst source categorizations and PEMs about menstruation were the most difficult to read. However, the differences in the readability scores among the sources and the topics were small.ConclusionsThis study found that online OB/GYN PEMs did not meet the AMA and NIH readability recommendations and would be difficult to read and comprehend for patients with low health literacy. Both findings connected well to the literature. This study highlights the need to improve the readability of OB/GYN PEMs to help patients make informed decisions. Research has been done to create more sophisticated readability measures for medical and health documents. Once validated, these tools need to be used by web-based content creators of health education materials.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the readability of printed education materials (PEMs) for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and to explore the perceptions of patients with SLE with different health literacy regarding the readability of PEMs.DesignA mixed-methods study, including a cross-sectional survey and semistructured interviews.SettingThe SLE PEMs were collected from 13 hospitals in China. The interviews were conducted in the Department of Rheumatology of a hospital in Hefei, China.ParticipantsIn the cross-sectional survey, convenience sampling was used to select the Chinese SLE PEMs, with 20 PEMs included. In the qualitative study, the patients with SLE were divided into two groups based on their health literacy. Then, purposive sampling was used to select participants in each group, with 18 patients recruited.Outcome measuresThe readability of PEMs was assessed by the language analysis technology and the Chinese version of the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM-C) instrument.ResultsFor text factors of readability, the mean Chinese language difficulty coefficient was 67.09±8.03, which indicates that the text of PEMs was difficult to read. For non-text factors, the mean SAM-C score was 45.62±9.51. Eight PEMs were rated not suitable, 12 were adequate and none were superior. In the interviews, eight categories were identified: information source, content, actionability, plain language, pictures, tables, numbers and layout. Patients with different health literacy had discrepant views on the detail of basic information, the necessity of question list, the location of functional pictures and the application of mathematical symbols.ConclusionsThe readability of Chinese SLE PEMs does not perform well, and it is necessary to reduce the difficulty of words, shorten the length of sentences and improve the picture design and actionability. To develop PEMs tailored to patients' level of health literacy, patients' unique view of readability should be integrated into the design of PEMs.

Project description:BackgroundRegular salt is about 100% sodium chloride. Low-sodium salts have reduced sodium chloride content, most commonly through substitution with potassium chloride. Low-sodium salts have a potential role in reducing the population's sodium intake levels and blood pressure, but their availability in the global market is unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to assess the availability, formulation, labeling, and price of low-sodium salts currently available to consumers worldwide.MethodsLow-sodium salts were identified through a systematic literature review, Google search, online shopping site searches, and inquiry of key informants. The keywords "salt substitute," "low-sodium salt," "potassium salt," "mineral salt," and "sodium reduced salt" in six official languages of the United Nations were used for the search. Information about the brand, formula, labeling, and price was extracted and analyzed.ResultsA total of 87 low-sodium salts were available in 47 out of 195 (24%) countries worldwide, including 28 high-income countries, 13 upper-middle-income countries, and 6 lower-middle-income countries. The proportion of sodium chloride varied from 0% (sodium-free) to 88% (as percent of weight; regular salt is 100% sodium chloride). Potassium chloride was the most frequent component with levels ranging from 0% to 100% (potassium chloride salt). A total of 43 (49%) low-sodium salts had labels with the potential health risks, and 33 (38%) had labels with the potential health benefits. The median price of low-sodium salts in high-income, upper-middle-income, and lower-middle-income countries was US $15.00/kg (IQR 6.4-22.5), US $2.70/kg (IQR 1.7-5.5), and US $2.90/kg (IQR 0.50-22.2), respectively. The price of low-sodium salts was between 1.1 and 14.6 times that of regular salts.ConclusionsLow-sodium salts are not widely available and are commonly more expensive than regular salts. Policies that promote the availability, affordability, and labeling of low-sodium salts should increase uptake, helping populations reduce blood pressure and prevent cardiovascular diseases.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.1111/jch.14054.

Dataset Information

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets