Expanding Accessibility in Cleft Care: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Literacy of Alveolar Bone Grafting Information.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Artur Manasyan, Sasha Lasky, Marah Jolibois, Tayla Moshal, Idean Roohani, Naikhoba Munabi, Mark M Urata, Jeffrey A Hammoudeh
{"title":"Expanding Accessibility in Cleft Care: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Improving Literacy of Alveolar Bone Grafting Information.","authors":"Artur Manasyan, Sasha Lasky, Marah Jolibois, Tayla Moshal, Idean Roohani, Naikhoba Munabi, Mark M Urata, Jeffrey A Hammoudeh","doi":"10.1177/10556656241281453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends patient education materials (PEMs) be written at or below a sixth grade reading level. This study seeks to determine the quality, readability, and content of available alveolar bone grafting (ABG) PEMs and determine if artificial intelligence can improve PEM readability.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Review of free online PEMs.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Online ABG PEMs were retrieved from different authoring body types (hospital/academic center, medical society, or private practice).</p><p><strong>Patients, participants: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Content was assessed by screening PEMs for specific ABG-related topics. Quality was evaluated with the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT), which has measures of understandability and actionability. Open-access readability software (WebFX) determined readability with Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. PEMs were rewritten with ChatGPT, and readability metrics were reassessed.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure(s): </strong>Quality, readability, and content of ABG PEMs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>34 PEMs were analyzed. Regarding quality, the average PEMAT-understandability score was 67.0 ± 16.2%, almost at the minimum acceptable score of 70.0% (p = 0.281). The average PEMAT-actionability score was low at 33.0 ± 24.1%. Regarding readability, the average Flesch Reading Ease score was 64.6 ± 12.8, categorized as \"standard/plain English.\" The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 8.0 ± 2.3, significantly higher than AMA recommendations (p < 0.0001). PEM rewriting with ChatGPT improved Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level to 6.1 ± 1.3 (p < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Available ABG PEMs are above the recommended reading level, yet ChatGPT can improve PEM readability. Future studies should improve areas of ABG PEMs that are most lacking, such as actionability.</p>","PeriodicalId":49220,"journal":{"name":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","volume":" ","pages":"10556656241281453"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10556656241281453","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends patient education materials (PEMs) be written at or below a sixth grade reading level. This study seeks to determine the quality, readability, and content of available alveolar bone grafting (ABG) PEMs and determine if artificial intelligence can improve PEM readability.

Design: Review of free online PEMs.

Setting: Online ABG PEMs were retrieved from different authoring body types (hospital/academic center, medical society, or private practice).

Patients, participants: None.

Interventions: Content was assessed by screening PEMs for specific ABG-related topics. Quality was evaluated with the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT), which has measures of understandability and actionability. Open-access readability software (WebFX) determined readability with Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. PEMs were rewritten with ChatGPT, and readability metrics were reassessed.

Main outcome measure(s): Quality, readability, and content of ABG PEMs.

Results: 34 PEMs were analyzed. Regarding quality, the average PEMAT-understandability score was 67.0 ± 16.2%, almost at the minimum acceptable score of 70.0% (p = 0.281). The average PEMAT-actionability score was low at 33.0 ± 24.1%. Regarding readability, the average Flesch Reading Ease score was 64.6 ± 12.8, categorized as "standard/plain English." The average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 8.0 ± 2.3, significantly higher than AMA recommendations (p < 0.0001). PEM rewriting with ChatGPT improved Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level to 6.1 ± 1.3 (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Available ABG PEMs are above the recommended reading level, yet ChatGPT can improve PEM readability. Future studies should improve areas of ABG PEMs that are most lacking, such as actionability.

扩大唇裂护理的可及性:人工智能在提高牙槽骨移植信息可读性中的作用。
目的:美国医学会(AMA)建议患者教育材料(PEM)的书写水平应达到或低于六年级的阅读水平。本研究旨在确定现有牙槽骨移植术(ABG)患者教育材料的质量、可读性和内容,并确定人工智能能否提高患者教育材料的可读性:设计:回顾免费在线 PEM:从不同类型的作者机构(医院/学术中心、医学会或私人诊所)检索在线 ABG PEM:干预措施通过筛选与 ABG 相关的特定主题的 PEM 来评估内容。使用患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)对质量进行评估,该工具可衡量可理解性和可操作性。开放式可读性软件 (WebFX) 通过 Flesch Reading Ease、Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 和 Gunning-Fog Index 来确定可读性。使用 ChatGPT 重写 PEM,并重新评估可读性指标:主要结果测量指标:ABG PEM 的质量、可读性和内容:分析了 34 份 PEM。在质量方面,PEMAT-可读性平均得分为 67.0 ± 16.2%,几乎达到了 70.0% 的最低可接受分数(p = 0.281)。PEMAT-可操作性平均得分较低,为 33.0 ± 24.1%。在可读性方面,弗莱什阅读容易度平均分为 64.6 ± 12.8,被归类为 "标准/普通英语"。平均 Flesch-Kincaid 分级为 8.0 ± 2.3,明显高于美国医学会的建议(p 结论:ABG PEMs 的可读性高于美国医学会的建议:现有的 ABG PEM 高于建议的阅读水平,但 ChatGPT 可以提高 PEM 的可读性。未来的研究应改进 ABG PEM 最缺乏的方面,如可操作性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
36.40%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ) is the premiere peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary, international journal dedicated to current research on etiology, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment in all areas pertaining to craniofacial anomalies. CPCJ reports on basic science and clinical research aimed at better elucidating the pathogenesis, pathology, and optimal methods of treatment of cleft and craniofacial anomalies. The journal strives to foster communication and cooperation among professionals from all specialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信