Dataset Information

Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment.

Material and methods

We 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.

Results

343 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.

Conclusions

OPEM 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.

SUBMITTER: Lamb LR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8665407 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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: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.