Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Delaney FT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8531160 | 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: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:Comprehensive patient education is necessary for shared decision-making. While patient-provider conversations primarily drive patient education, patients also use published materials to enhance their understanding. In this investigation, we evaluated the readability of 2585 patient education materials published in high-impact medical journals from 1998 to 2018 and compared our findings to readability recommendations from national groups. For all materials, mean readability grade levels ranged from 11.2 to 13.8 by various metrics. Fifty-four (2.1%) materials met the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade reading level, and 215 (8.2%) met the National Institutes of Health recommendation of eighth grade level. When stratified by journal and material type, general medical education materials from Annals of Internal Medicine were the most readable (P < .001), with 79.8% meeting the eighth grade level. Readability did not differ significantly over time. Efforts to standardize publication practice with the incorporation of readability evaluation during the review process may improve patients' understanding of their disease processes and treatment options.
| S-EPMC8205335 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven that nasal septoplasty is a common procedure in otolaryngology - head and neck surgery, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on septoplasty.MethodsA Google search was performed using eight different search terms related to septoplasty. Six different tools were used to assess the readability of included patient education materials. These included the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The DISCERN tool was used to assess quality and reliability.ResultsEighty-five online patient education materials were included. The average Flesch-Reading Ease score for all patient education materials was 54.9 ± 11.5, indicating they were fairly difficult to read. The average reading grade level was 10.5 ± 2.0, which is higher than the recommended reading level for patient education materials. The mean DISCERN score was 42.9 ± 10.5 and 42% (36/85) of articles had DISCERN scores less than 39, corresponding to poor or very poor quality.ConclusionThe majority of online patient education materials on septoplasty are written above the recommended reading levels and have significant deficiencies in terms of their quality and reliability. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the shortcomings of these resources and consider the impact they may have on patients' decision making.
| S-EPMC7970817 | 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:BackgroundThe internet has become an increasingly popular resource among sports medicine patients seeking injury-related information. Numerous organizations recommend that patient educational materials (PEMs) should not exceed sixth-grade reading level. Despite this, studies have consistently shown the reading grade level (RGL) of PEMs to be too demanding across a range of surgical specialties.PurposeTo determine the readability of online sports medicine PEMs.Study designCross-sectional study.MethodsThe readability of 363 articles pertaining to sports medicine from 5 leading North American websites was assessed using 8 readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Raygor Estimate, Fry Readability Formula, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau Index, FORCAST Readability Formula, and Gunning Fog Index. The mean RGL of each article was compared with the sixth- and eighth-grade reading level in the United States. The cumulative mean website RGL was also compared among individual websites.ResultsThe overall cumulative mean RGL was 12.2 (range, 7.0-17.7). No article (0%) was written at a sixth-grade reading level, and only 3 articles (0.8%) were written at or below the eighth-grade reading level. The overall cumulative mean RGL was significantly higher than the sixth-grade [95% CI for the difference, 6.0-6.5; P < .001] and eighth-grade (95% CI, 4.0-4.5; P < .001) reading levels. There was a significant difference among the cumulative mean RGLs of the 5 websites assessed.ConclusionSports medicine PEMs produced by leading North American specialty websites have readability scores that are above the recommended levels. Given the increasing preference of patients for online health care materials, the imperative role of health literacy in patient outcomes, and the growing body of online resources, significant work needs to be undertaken to improve the readability of these materials.
| S-EPMC9082750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans can help reclassify risk and guide patient-clinician shared treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease prevention. Patients increasingly access online patient educational materials (OPEMs) to guide medical decision-making. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that OPEMs should be written below a 6th-grade reading level. This study estimated the readability of commonly accessed OPEMs on CAC scans. Methods and Results The terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score" were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 50 commonly accessed websites based on order of search results on December 17, 2019. Grade-level readability was calculated using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Results were compared with AMA-recommended readability parameters. Overall grade-level readability among all search terms was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.3-12.5). Average grade-level readability of OPEMs for the search terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score," was 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0-12.5), 10.5 (95% CI, 8.9-12.1), and 11.9 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5), respectively. Professional society and news/media/blog websites had the highest average reading grade level of 12.6, while health system websites had the lowest average reading grade level of 10.0. Less than half of the unique websites (45.3%) included explanatory images or videos. Conclusions Current OPEMs on CAC scans are written at a higher reading level than recommended for the general public. This may lead to patient misunderstanding, which could exacerbate disparities in cardiovascular health among groups with lower health literacy.
| S-EPMC7726991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe aimed to describe the proportion and characteristics of cancer patients who perceived that better care would have greatly improved their well-being in (1) specific and (2) multiple domains of patient-centred care.DesignCross-sectional touchscreen computer survey.SettingFour Australian radiation therapy departments located within major urban public hospitals.ParticipantsRadiation therapy outpatients were invited to participate in a touchscreen computer survey. Eligible patients were at least 18 years old, diagnosed with cancer and had sufficient English to complete the survey.Primary outcome measureParticipants were asked whether their well-being could have been greatly improved if better care had been provided across eight domains of patient-centred care. Characteristics of those respondents who identified (1) specific and (2) multiple domains where it was perceived that better care would have greatly improved their well-being were examined.ResultsOf 508 eligible radiation therapy patients, 344 (68%) completed the survey. Patients most frequently perceived that better care in the following domains could have improved their well-being: information and communication about their cancer (22%; 95% CI 18% to 27%); emotional and spiritual support (22%; 95% CI 18% to 27%); management of physical symptoms (21%; 95% CI 17% to 26%) and involvement of friends and family (21%; 95% CI 17% to 26%). Just under one-third of respondents (31%; 95% CI 26% to 36%) indicated that their well-being could have been improved by better care across two or more domains of care. Patients in younger age groups and migrants to Australia had higher odds of endorsing multiple domains where better care would have improved their well-being.ConclusionsFurther investigation of patients' perceptions of how their perceived quality of care might be improved is warranted, particularly among patients in younger age groups and migrants to Australia.
| S-EPMC3586157 | biostudies-literature
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