Evaluating the Health Literacy Characteristics of Question Prompt Lists on National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center Websites.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

Journal of Cancer Education Pub Date : 2025-06-30 DOI:10.1007/s13187-025-02675-2

J Lockhart, M L Stellefson, L W Turner, R S Mkuu, B Mehra, J Leeper

{"title":"Evaluating the Health Literacy Characteristics of Question Prompt Lists on National Cancer Institute Designated Cancer Center Websites.","authors":"J Lockhart, M L Stellefson, L W Turner, R S Mkuu, B Mehra, J Leeper","doi":"10.1007/s13187-025-02675-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ineffective communication between cancer survivors and providers can contribute to health disparities. Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) help facilitate patient-provider communication; however little research has evaluated the tool. This study evaluated the characteristics of QPLs available on National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center websites. A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 64 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites. Eighty-nine QPLs were coded based on the Information Literacy Framework and the National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards. The readability, actionability, understandability, clarity, and suitability of QPLs were evaluated using validated tools to determine their utility in supporting diverse cancer survivors. Thirty-nine centers (59.1%) provided a total of 89 QPLs, averaging 16.4 questions (SD ± 10.4) per list. No QPLs (0%) were created for a specific race/ethnicity or who identify with sexual and gender minority populations. Six (6.7%) were created based on age and seven (7.9%) were available in multiple languages. Common topics included diagnosis (68.5%) and treatment (79.8%). Twenty QPLs (29.2%) were available as PDFs, and most (70.8%) were not cancer-type specific. While most QPLs (76.4%) demonstrated good understandability, 62.9% had poor actionability, 82.0% exhibited superior suitability, and 92.1% had suboptimal clarity. The average readability was seventh grade. Cancer centers should develop QPLs that address diverse cultural and communication needs. Despite their importance, most QPLs lacked inclusivity. Additionally, while understandability was generally high, actionability and clarity were suboptimal, potentially limiting their effectiveness in guiding patient-provider discussions. Using validated tools before dissemination aligns with best practices to improve patient-centered care while reducing health disparities.</p>","PeriodicalId":50246,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cancer Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cancer Education","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-025-02675-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ineffective communication between cancer survivors and providers can contribute to health disparities. Question Prompt Lists (QPLs) help facilitate patient-provider communication; however little research has evaluated the tool. This study evaluated the characteristics of QPLs available on National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Center websites. A cross-sectional content analysis was conducted on 64 NCI-Designated Cancer Center websites. Eighty-nine QPLs were coded based on the Information Literacy Framework and the National Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards. The readability, actionability, understandability, clarity, and suitability of QPLs were evaluated using validated tools to determine their utility in supporting diverse cancer survivors. Thirty-nine centers (59.1%) provided a total of 89 QPLs, averaging 16.4 questions (SD ± 10.4) per list. No QPLs (0%) were created for a specific race/ethnicity or who identify with sexual and gender minority populations. Six (6.7%) were created based on age and seven (7.9%) were available in multiple languages. Common topics included diagnosis (68.5%) and treatment (79.8%). Twenty QPLs (29.2%) were available as PDFs, and most (70.8%) were not cancer-type specific. While most QPLs (76.4%) demonstrated good understandability, 62.9% had poor actionability, 82.0% exhibited superior suitability, and 92.1% had suboptimal clarity. The average readability was seventh grade. Cancer centers should develop QPLs that address diverse cultural and communication needs. Despite their importance, most QPLs lacked inclusivity. Additionally, while understandability was generally high, actionability and clarity were suboptimal, potentially limiting their effectiveness in guiding patient-provider discussions. Using validated tools before dissemination aligns with best practices to improve patient-centered care while reducing health disparities.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估国家癌症研究所指定癌症中心网站问题提示列表的健康素养特征。

癌症幸存者和提供者之间的无效沟通可能导致健康差异。问题提示列表（QPLs）有助于促进医患沟通；然而，很少有研究对该工具进行评估。本研究评估了美国国家癌症研究所（NCI）指定的癌症中心网站上提供的QPLs的特征。对64个nci指定的癌症中心网站进行了横断面内容分析。89个qpl基于信息素养框架和国家文化和语言适宜服务（CLAS）标准进行编码。使用经过验证的工具评估QPLs的可读性、可操作性、可理解性、清晰度和适用性，以确定其在支持不同癌症幸存者中的效用。39个中心（59.1%）总共提供了89个qpl，平均每个清单16.4个问题（SD±10.4）。没有为特定的种族/民族或性和性别少数群体创建qpl（0%）。6个（6.7%）基于年龄创建，7个（7.9%）以多种语言提供。常见的话题包括诊断（68.5%）和治疗（79.8%）。20份QPLs（29.2%）以pdf格式提供，大多数（70.8%）不是癌症类型特异性的。大多数qpl（76.4%）具有良好的可理解性，62.9%具有较差的可操作性，82.0%具有较好的适用性，92.1%具有次优的清晰度。平均可读性是七年级。癌症中心应该开发满足不同文化和交流需求的qpl。尽管它们很重要，但大多数qpl缺乏包容性。此外，虽然可理解性普遍较高，但可操作性和清晰度不是最佳的，这可能限制了它们在指导患者与提供者讨论方面的有效性。在传播之前使用经过验证的工具符合最佳做法，可以改善以患者为中心的护理，同时减少健康差距。

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

Journal of Cancer Education 医学-医学：信息

CiteScore

3.40

自引率

6.20%

发文量

122

审稿时长

4-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Cancer Education, the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education (AACE) and the European Association for Cancer Education (EACE), is an international, quarterly journal dedicated to the publication of original contributions dealing with the varied aspects of cancer education for physicians, dentists, nurses, students, social workers and other allied health professionals, patients, the general public, and anyone interested in effective education about cancer related issues. Articles featured include reports of original results of educational research, as well as discussions of current problems and techniques in cancer education. Manuscripts are welcome on such subjects as educational methods, instruments, and program evaluation. Suitable topics include teaching of basic science aspects of cancer; the assessment of attitudes toward cancer patient management; the teaching of diagnostic skills relevant to cancer; the evaluation of undergraduate, postgraduate, or continuing education programs; and articles about all aspects of cancer education from prevention to palliative care. We encourage contributions to a special column called Reflections; these articles should relate to the human aspects of dealing with cancer, cancer patients, and their families and finding meaning and support in these efforts. Letters to the Editor (600 words or less) dealing with published articles or matters of current interest are also invited. Also featured are commentary; book and media reviews; and announcements of educational programs, fellowships, and grants. Articles should be limited to no more than ten double-spaced typed pages, and there should be no more than three tables or figures and 25 references. We also encourage brief reports of five typewritten pages or less, with no more than one figure or table and 15 references.