Assessment of printed lung cancer surgery patient education materials in the United States

Woorin Jang BS , Savanna Kerstiens MA , Rachel Nordgren PhD , Anne Dijkstra MB , Marina DePablo MPH, DNP, RN , Lauren Gleason MD, MPH , Darren Bryan MD , Jessica S. Donington MD, MSCR , Mark K. Ferguson MD , Jane L. Holl MD, MPH , Maria Lucia Madariaga MD
{"title":"Assessment of printed lung cancer surgery patient education materials in the United States","authors":"Woorin Jang BS ,&nbsp;Savanna Kerstiens MA ,&nbsp;Rachel Nordgren PhD ,&nbsp;Anne Dijkstra MB ,&nbsp;Marina DePablo MPH, DNP, RN ,&nbsp;Lauren Gleason MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Darren Bryan MD ,&nbsp;Jessica S. Donington MD, MSCR ,&nbsp;Mark K. Ferguson MD ,&nbsp;Jane L. Holl MD, MPH ,&nbsp;Maria Lucia Madariaga MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xjon.2024.09.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Well-designed patient education materials (PEMs) increase health literacy, which has been linked to better surgical patient outcomes. The quality of lung cancer surgery PEMs is unknown, however. Here we assessed printed lung cancer surgery PEMs for readability, understandability, actionability, and accessibility.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Various lung cancer programs throughout the United States were contacted for their lung cancer surgery PEMs. The readability of the received materials was calculated using 6 readability tests. Four thoracic surgeon–advanced practice practitioner dyads scored the PEMs for understandability, actionability, and accessibility using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the Accessibility Assessment Tool, with the recommended minimum threshold of 70%. One-sample <em>t</em> tests were performed to compare each parameter against its recommended threshold.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Out of 34 institutions contacted, 18 (52.9%) provided PEMs. The average reading level of the PEMs ranged from 7th grade to 11th grade, significantly exceeding the recommended 6th grade health literacy threshold (<em>P</em> &lt; .01). Although mean understandability (73.7 ± 13.2%) and actionability (70.2 ± 17.8%) scores were not significantly different from the minimum threshold, and the mean accessibility score (81.8 ± 13.5%) was significantly higher than the threshold (<em>P</em> &lt; .05), there was wide variation in the scores. Most PEMs scored well in organization and writing but lacked other features that can enhance patient understanding, such as visual aids and summaries.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>PEMs are written at reading levels that are too advanced for patients. Although PEMs scored well in understandability, actionability, and accessibility, analysis of individual items revealed the need for improvement, including the use of shorter sentences, more visual aids and summaries, and expansion of language translations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74032,"journal":{"name":"JTCVS open","volume":"22 ","pages":"Pages 530-539"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11704558/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JTCVS open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666273624002535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Well-designed patient education materials (PEMs) increase health literacy, which has been linked to better surgical patient outcomes. The quality of lung cancer surgery PEMs is unknown, however. Here we assessed printed lung cancer surgery PEMs for readability, understandability, actionability, and accessibility.

Methods

Various lung cancer programs throughout the United States were contacted for their lung cancer surgery PEMs. The readability of the received materials was calculated using 6 readability tests. Four thoracic surgeon–advanced practice practitioner dyads scored the PEMs for understandability, actionability, and accessibility using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the Accessibility Assessment Tool, with the recommended minimum threshold of 70%. One-sample t tests were performed to compare each parameter against its recommended threshold.

Results

Out of 34 institutions contacted, 18 (52.9%) provided PEMs. The average reading level of the PEMs ranged from 7th grade to 11th grade, significantly exceeding the recommended 6th grade health literacy threshold (P < .01). Although mean understandability (73.7 ± 13.2%) and actionability (70.2 ± 17.8%) scores were not significantly different from the minimum threshold, and the mean accessibility score (81.8 ± 13.5%) was significantly higher than the threshold (P < .05), there was wide variation in the scores. Most PEMs scored well in organization and writing but lacked other features that can enhance patient understanding, such as visual aids and summaries.

Conclusions

PEMs are written at reading levels that are too advanced for patients. Although PEMs scored well in understandability, actionability, and accessibility, analysis of individual items revealed the need for improvement, including the use of shorter sentences, more visual aids and summaries, and expansion of language translations.

Abstract Image

美国肺癌手术患者教育材料的评估。
目的:设计良好的患者教育材料(PEMs)提高健康素养,这与更好的手术患者预后有关。然而,肺癌手术PEMs的质量尚不清楚。在这里,我们评估打印肺癌手术PEMs的可读性、可理解性、可操作性和可及性。方法:联系了美国各地的各种肺癌项目进行肺癌手术PEMs。采用6次可读性测试计算接收材料的可读性。四名胸外科医生和高级执业医师组合使用患者教育材料评估工具和可访问性评估工具对PEMs的可理解性、可操作性和可访问性进行评分,建议最低阈值为70%。进行单样本t检验,将每个参数与其推荐阈值进行比较。结果:在所联系的34家机构中,18家(52.9%)提供了PEMs。PEMs的平均阅读水平从7年级到11年级不等,显著超过推荐的6年级健康素养阈值(P P结论:PEMs的阅读水平对患者来说太高了。尽管PEMs在可理解性、可操作性和可访问性方面得分很高,但对个别项目的分析显示需要改进,包括使用更短的句子,更多的视觉辅助和摘要,以及扩展语言翻译。
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
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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