Radiotherapy or Surgery? Comparative, Qualitative Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials on Prostate Cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vu E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8482178 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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).
| S-EPMC8790699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment.Material and methodsWe queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized.Results343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria.ConclusionsOPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.
| S-EPMC8665407 | 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: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.
| S-EPMC10500363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the increasing accessibility of Internet access, it is critical to ensure that the informational material available online for patient education is both accurate and readable to promote a greater degree of health literacy. This study sought to investigate the quality and readability of the most popular online resources for ankle fractures.MethodsAfter conducting a Google search using 6 terms related to ankle fractures, we collected the first 20 nonsponsored results for each term. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI) instruments. Quality was evaluated using custom created Ankle Fracture Index (AFI).ResultsA total of 46 of 120 articles met the inclusion criteria. The mean FKGL, FRE, and GFI scores were 8.4 ± 0.5, 57.5 ± 3.2, and 10.5 ± 0.5, respectively. The average AFI score was 15.4 ± 1.4, corresponding to an "acceptable" quality rating. Almost 70% of articles (n = 32) were written at or below the recommended eighth-grade reading level. Most articles discussed the need for imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning while neglecting to discuss the risks of surgery or potential future operations.ConclusionWe found that online patient-facing materials on ankle fractures demonstrated an eighth-grade average reading grade level and an acceptable quality on content analysis. Further work should surround increasing information regarding risk factors, complications for surgery, and long-term recovery while ensuring that readability levels remain below at least the eighth-grade level.
| S-EPMC10989055 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRobust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking. We investigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.MethodsWe compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial who completed questionnaires before diagnosis, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Patients completed validated measures that assessed urinary, bowel, and sexual function and specific effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression, and general health. Cancer-related quality of life was assessed at 5 years. Complete 6-year data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsThe rate of questionnaire completion during follow-up was higher than 85% for most measures. Of the three treatments, prostatectomy had the greatest negative effect on sexual function and urinary continence, and although there was some recovery, these outcomes remained worse in the prostatectomy group than in the other groups throughout the trial. The negative effect of radiotherapy on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but sexual function then recovered somewhat and was stable thereafter; radiotherapy had little effect on urinary continence. Sexual and urinary function declined gradually in the active-monitoring group. Bowel function was worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months than in the other groups but then recovered somewhat, except for the increasing frequency of bloody stools; bowel function was unchanged in the other groups. Urinary voiding and nocturia were worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months but then mostly recovered and were similar to the other groups after 12 months. Effects on quality of life mirrored the reported changes in function. No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of anxiety, depression, or general health-related or cancer-related quality of life.ConclusionsIn this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recovery, and decline in urinary, bowel, and sexual function and associated quality of life differed among the three groups. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).
| S-EPMC5134995 | biostudies-literature
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:Background: Patients frequently consult the internet for health information. Our aim was to perform an Internet-based readability and quality control study using recognised quality scoring systems to assess the patient information available online relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement surgery. Methods: Online patient information relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement was identified using Google, Bing and Yahoo with search terms 'hip replacement anaesthetic', 'knee replacement anaesthetic.' Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using DISCERN instrument, Health On the Net Foundation seal, and Information Standard mark. Results: 32 websites were analysed. 25% were HONcode certified, 15.6% had the Information Standard. Mean FRE was 55.2±12.8. Mean FKGL was 8.6±1.9. Six websites (18.8%) had the recommended 6 th-grade readability level. Mean of 10.4±2.6 years of formal education was required to read the websites. Websites with Information Standard were easier to read: FKGL (6.2 vs. 9, P < 0.001), GFI (8.8 vs. 10.7, P = 0.04), FRE score (64.2 vs. 9, P = 0.02). Mean DISCERN score was low: 40.3 ± 13. Conclusions: Overall, most websites were poor quality with reading levels too high for the target audience. Information Standard NHS quality mark was associated with improved readability, however along with HONcode were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with quality. Based on this study, we would encourage healthcare professionals to be judicious in the websites they recommend to patients, and to consider both the readability and quality of the information provided.
| S-EPMC7722535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this study was to assess online American patient education material (PEM) related to eye cancers in order to determine the quality of the content and appropriateness of the contents' reading level as it relates to the American population. PEMs were extracted from fifteen American cancer and ophthalmology associations and evaluated for their reading level using ten validated readability scales. PEMs then had all words extracted and evaluated for their difficulty and familiarity. The quality of the PEMS were assessed according to DISCERN, Heath On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONCode), and JAMA benchmarks. Overall, online PEMs from the associations were written at a 11th grade reading level, which is above the recommended 6th grade reading level. The difficult word analysis identified that 26% of words were unfamiliar. Only one of the fifteen association held a HONCode certification while no organization met the standards of all four JAMA benchmarks. The average score for DISCERN was 2.4 out of a total of 5 for the fifteen questions related to treatment option information quality. Consideration should be made to create PEMs at an appropriate grade reading level to encourage health literacy and ultimately promote health outcomes. Associations should also focus on incorporating easily identifiable quality indicators to allow patients to better identify reputable resources.
| S-EPMC10578596 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundProviding people with understandable and actionable health information can considerably promote healthy behaviors and outcomes. To this end, some valid and reliable scales assessing the patient-friendliness of health education materials, like the PEMAT-P (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials), have been well developed in English-speaking countries. However, the English version of the PEMAT-P has not been translated and adapted into simplified Chinese and validated in mainland China.ObjectiveThis study sought to translate the PEMAT-P tool into a simplified Chinese (Mandarin) version (C-PEMAT-P, a Chinese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials) and verify its validity and reliability for assessing the comprehensibility and actionability of health education resources written in simplified Chinese. As a result, the validated C-PEMAT-P could be used to guide health researchers and educators to design more comprehensible and actionable materials for more tailored and targeted health education and interventions.MethodsWe translated the PEMAT-P into simplified Chinese in the following three steps: (1) forward-translating the PEMAT-P into simplified Chinese, (2) back-translating the simplified Chinese version into English, and (3) testing translation equivalence linguistically and culturally by examining the original English version of the PEMAT-P and the back-translated English version of the tool. Any discrepancies between the original English tool and the back-translated English tool were resolved through a panel discussion among the research team of all authors to produce a revised forward-translated Chinese version (C-PEMAT-P). We then evaluated the clarity of construction and wording as well as the content relevance of the C-PEMAT-P using a 4-point ordinal scale to determine its content validity. After that, 2 native Chinese speakers (health educators) used the C-PEMAT-P to rate 15 health education handouts concerning air pollution and health to validate their reliability. We calculated the Cohen coefficient and Cronbach α to determine the interrater agreement and internal consistency of the C-PEMAT-P, respectively.ResultsWe finalized the translated Chinese tool after discussing the differences between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) of the PEMAT-P, producing the final Chinese version of the PEMAT-P (C-PEMAT-P). The content validity index of the C-PEMAT-P version was 0.969, the Cohen coefficient for the interrater scoring agreement was 0.928, and the Cronbach α for internal consistency was .897. These values indicated the high validity and reliability of the C-PEMAT-P.ConclusionsThe C-PEMAT-P has been proven valid and reliable. It is the first Chinese scale for assessing the comprehensibility and actionability of Chinese health education materials. It can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate health education materials currently available and a guide to help health researchers and educators design more comprehensible and actionable materials for more tailored and targeted health education and interventions.
| S-EPMC10236277 | biostudies-literature