The Readability, Understandability, and Suitability of Online Resources for Ostomy Care.

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q2 NURSING
Hannah Ficarino, Cara Moses, Lauren Wood, Gabby Byrd, Smita Bhatia, Daniel Chu, Robert Hollis
{"title":"The Readability, Understandability, and Suitability of Online Resources for Ostomy Care.","authors":"Hannah Ficarino, Cara Moses, Lauren Wood, Gabby Byrd, Smita Bhatia, Daniel Chu, Robert Hollis","doi":"10.1097/WON.0000000000001125","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>the purpose of this study was to evaluate the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online resources for patient specific ostomy care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Subject and setting: </strong>Online websites for ostomy care designed for patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ostomy care websites designed for patients were identified by querying three online search engines. Content areas were established following assessment of all websites by two reviewers. Readability of each website was determined using the Flesch Reading Ease Test and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Understandability was measured using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and suitability was determined using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Chi-Square and rank sum tests were used to compare these measures across website type and by number of content areas.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-three websites met inclusion criteria; 26.1% were for-profit, 13% were government, 26.1% were academic, and 34.8% were non-profit. Nineteen content areas were identified including themes related to pouching, bathing, physical activity, managing output, lifestyle, mental health, and eating. The median number of content areas covered was 8.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-13]. The most common content areas were changing/emptying a pouching system (82.6% of websites), preventing/managing peristomal skin irritation (78.3%), eating (60.9%), and odor management (60.9%). Less than 27% of websites had content on irrigation, blockage/constipation, and body image. Readability scores using the Flesch Reading Ease (mean 58, IQR 54.7-69.5) and SMOG Index (mean 9.1, IQR 7.6-9.9) correlated to a high-school or \"fairly difficult\" reading level. The mean PEMAT measuring understandability was 80 (IQR 78.9-84.0). The mean SAM score checking for suitability (literacy demand, graphics, layout and type, learning stimulation and motivation and cultural appropriateness) was 55% (IQR 48.4%-61.3%), indicating \"adequate material.\" A greater number of content areas on the websites were associated with worse readability (SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease scores) than websites presenting fewer content areas (P = .001 & P < .001, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found significant variability in the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online materials for ostomy care. Websites with more content areas were associated with worse readability.</p>","PeriodicalId":49950,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","volume":"51 6","pages":"471-477"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11601952/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Wound Ostomy and Continence Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/WON.0000000000001125","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: the purpose of this study was to evaluate the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online resources for patient specific ostomy care.

Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Subject and setting: Online websites for ostomy care designed for patients.

Methods: Ostomy care websites designed for patients were identified by querying three online search engines. Content areas were established following assessment of all websites by two reviewers. Readability of each website was determined using the Flesch Reading Ease Test and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Understandability was measured using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and suitability was determined using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Chi-Square and rank sum tests were used to compare these measures across website type and by number of content areas.

Results: Twenty-three websites met inclusion criteria; 26.1% were for-profit, 13% were government, 26.1% were academic, and 34.8% were non-profit. Nineteen content areas were identified including themes related to pouching, bathing, physical activity, managing output, lifestyle, mental health, and eating. The median number of content areas covered was 8.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-13]. The most common content areas were changing/emptying a pouching system (82.6% of websites), preventing/managing peristomal skin irritation (78.3%), eating (60.9%), and odor management (60.9%). Less than 27% of websites had content on irrigation, blockage/constipation, and body image. Readability scores using the Flesch Reading Ease (mean 58, IQR 54.7-69.5) and SMOG Index (mean 9.1, IQR 7.6-9.9) correlated to a high-school or "fairly difficult" reading level. The mean PEMAT measuring understandability was 80 (IQR 78.9-84.0). The mean SAM score checking for suitability (literacy demand, graphics, layout and type, learning stimulation and motivation and cultural appropriateness) was 55% (IQR 48.4%-61.3%), indicating "adequate material." A greater number of content areas on the websites were associated with worse readability (SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease scores) than websites presenting fewer content areas (P = .001 & P < .001, respectively).

Conclusions: We found significant variability in the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online materials for ostomy care. Websites with more content areas were associated with worse readability.

造口护理在线资源的可读性、可理解性和适用性。
目的:本研究旨在评估造口护理在线资源的内容、可读性、可理解性和对患者的适用性:设计:回顾性队列研究:方法:为患者设计的造口护理在线网站:通过查询三个在线搜索引擎,确定了为患者设计的造口护理网站。由两名审查员对所有网站进行评估后确定内容范围。每个网站的可读性都是通过弗莱施阅读容易程度测试和 "简单拗口"(SMOG)指数来确定的。可理解性使用患者教育材料评估工具 (PEMAT) 进行测量,适用性使用材料适用性评估 (SAM) 进行确定。在比较不同网站类型和内容领域数量时,使用了Chi-Square和秩和检验:符合纳入标准的网站有 23 个;其中 26.1%为营利性网站,13%为政府网站,26.1%为学术网站,34.8%为非营利性网站。共确定了 19 个内容领域,包括与布袋、洗澡、体育活动、管理输出量、生活方式、心理健康和饮食相关的主题。涵盖内容的中位数为 8.5 [四分位数间距 (IQR) 4-13]。最常见的内容领域是更换/清空布袋系统(82.6% 的网站)、预防/处理肛门周围皮肤刺激(78.3%)、饮食(60.9%)和气味处理(60.9%)。只有不到 27% 的网站有灌肠、堵塞/便秘和身体形象方面的内容。使用 Flesch 阅读容易度(平均值 58,IQR 54.7-69.5)和 SMOG 指数(平均值 9.1,IQR 7.6-9.9)进行的可读性评分与高中或 "相当困难 "的阅读水平相关。衡量可理解性的 PEMAT 平均值为 80(IQR 78.9-84.0)。检查适用性(识字需求、图形、布局和类型、学习刺激和动机以及文化适宜性)的 SAM 平均得分率为 55%(IQR 48.4%-61.3%),表明 "材料充足"。与内容较少的网站相比,内容较多的网站可读性较差(SMOG 和 Flesch 阅读容易度得分)(P = .001 & P 结论:网站内容和可读性之间存在显著差异:我们发现造口护理在线资料在内容、可读性、易懂性和适用性方面存在很大差异。内容较多的网站可读性较差。
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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
34.60%
发文量
186
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​The Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing (JWOCN), the official journal of the Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nurses Society™ (WOCN®), is the premier publication for wound, ostomy and continence practice and research. The Journal’s mission is to publish current best evidence and original research to guide the delivery of expert health care. The WOCN Society is a professional nursing society which supports its members by promoting educational, clinical and research opportunities to advance the practice and guide the delivery of expert health care to individuals with wounds, ostomies and continence care needs.
×
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