Readability of Patient Education Materials From High-Impact Medical Journals: A 20-Year Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rooney MK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8205335 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimsTo identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs).MethodsSystematic 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.ResultsForty-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.ConclusionsOver 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.
| S-EPMC6595308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the goals of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is to disseminate patient education materials that suit the readability skills of the patient population. According to standard guidelines from healthcare organizations, the readability of patient education materials should be no higher than the sixth-grade level. We hypothesized the readability level of patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site would be higher than the recommended grade level, regardless when the material was available online. Readability scores of all articles from the AAOS Internet-based patient information Web site, "Your Orthopaedic Connection," were determined using the Flesch-Kincaid grade formula. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level of the 426 unique articles was 10.43. Only 10 (2%) of the articles had the recommended readability level of sixth grade or lower. The readability of the articles did not change with time. Our findings suggest the majority of the patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site had readability scores that may be too difficult for comprehension by a substantial portion of the patient population.
| S-EPMC2311488 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to "post-COVID-19 pain."MethodsOne-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms "post-COVID-19 pain" and "pain after COVID-19" using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively.ResultsUpon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.
| S-EPMC9308460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety.MethodsA total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman-Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests.ResultsThe cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6-17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8-7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8-5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 ('difficult').ConclusionCurrently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice.
| S-EPMC8531160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.
| S-EPMC7014575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo assist educators and researchers in improving the quality of medical research, we surveyed the editors and statistical reviewers of high-impact medical journals to ascertain the most frequent and critical statistical errors in submitted manuscripts.FindingsThe Editors-in-Chief and statistical reviewers of the 38 medical journals with the highest impact factor in the 2007 Science Journal Citation Report and the 2007 Social Science Journal Citation Report were invited to complete an online survey about the statistical and design problems they most frequently found in manuscripts. Content analysis of the responses identified major issues. Editors and statistical reviewers (n = 25) from 20 journals responded. Respondents described problems that we classified into two, broad themes: A. statistical and sampling issues and B. inadequate reporting clarity or completeness. Problems included in the first theme were (1) inappropriate or incomplete analysis, including violations of model assumptions and analysis errors, (2) uninformed use of propensity scores, (3) failing to account for clustering in data analysis, (4) improperly addressing missing data, and (5) power/sample size concerns. Issues subsumed under the second theme were (1) Inadequate description of the methods and analysis and (2) Misstatement of results, including undue emphasis on p-values and incorrect inferences and interpretations.ConclusionsThe scientific quality of submitted manuscripts would increase if researchers addressed these common design, analytical, and reporting issues. Improving the application and presentation of quantitative methods in scholarly manuscripts is essential to advancing medical research.
| S-EPMC3224575 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7559043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Letters to the Editor offer ways for readers to engage with authors' publications. Letters are the shortest manuscript for medical students to publish and medical-education journals are best suited. The UK Foundation Programme rewards medical students achieving PubMed ID publications and we hypothesise that this is a main motivation for medical students to submit Letters to the Editor. A review of 15 medical-education journals with an impact factor was conducted to identify numbers and percentages of Letters to the Editor by medical students between July 2018 and June 2020. Affiliation of medical students was collected. Our results show over two years, 299 letters were published by medical students equating to 45.9% of total letters. There was a 60% overall increase in letters by medical students published in the first 12 months compared to second 12 months. During this period overall numbers of letters published increased by 27%. 86% of the letters published by medical students over the two-year period were from UK medical schools. Five schools accounted for 60.5% of these letters. The three medical schools with highest numbers of letters published were King's College London, Imperial College London and University of Oxford for both 2018/19 and 2019/20. The increase in letters published overall with greater numbers published by students, may indicate greater awareness of Letters to the Editor as means of dissemination amongst medical students. UK medical schools published large numbers of letters, perhaps reflecting increasing importance to students of publications due to impacting on subsequent jobs. Results from our quantitative research revealing: large numbers of letters by medical students, increase in letters published from 2018/19 to 2019/20 and overrepresentation of UK medical students supports the hypothesis that medical students are publishing letters to achieve PubMed IDs. Further qualitative research is required to test our hypothesis.
| S-EPMC8057084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model aims to provide patient-centered care, lower costs, and improve health outcomes. Medical students have not been meaningfully integrated in this model. AIM: To test the feasibility of a longitudinal clerkship based on PCMH principles and anchored by PCMH educational objectives. SETTING: Two community-based family medicine clinics, one academic internal medicine clinic, and one pediatric clinic affiliated with an urban medical school. PARTICIPANTS: 56 medical student volunteers. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We embedded student teams in existing faculty practices and recruited a high-risk patient panel for each team. Clinical education occurred through a traditional clinic preceptor model and was augmented by 3rd and 4th year students directly observing 1st and 2nd year students. Didactic content included monthly Grand Rounds conferences. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Students attended 699 clinics, recruited 273 continuity patients, and participated in 9 Grand Rounds conferences. Student confidence with PCMH principles increased and attitudes regarding continuity were highly positive. "Continuity," "early clinical exposure," and "peer teaching" were the most powerful themes expressed by students. Faculty response to the pilot was highly positive. DISCUSSION: An Education-Centered Medical Home (ECMH) is feasible and is highly rated by students and faculty. Expansion of this model is underway.
| S-EPMC3710377 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: In articles reporting randomized controlled trials, professional medical writing support is associated with increased adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). We set out to determine whether professional medical writing support was also associated with improved adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts. Methods: Using data from a previously published cross-sectional study of 463 articles reporting randomized controlled trials published between 2011 and 2014 in five top medical journals, we determined the association between professional medical writing support and CONSORT for Abstracts items using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Results: The mean proportion of adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts items reported was similar with and without professional medical writing support (64.3% vs 66.5%, respectively; p=0.30). Professional medical writing support was associated with lower adherence to reporting study setting (relative risk [RR]; 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.70), and higher adherence to disclosing harms/side effects (RR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.37-3.03) and funding source (RR 1.75; 95% CI, 1.18-2.60). Conclusions: Although professional medical writing support was not associated with increased overall adherence to CONSORT for Abstracts, important aspects were improved with professional medical writing support, including reporting of adverse events and funding source. This study identifies areas to consider for improvement.
| S-EPMC5615774 | biostudies-literature