Readability, Understandability, Usability, and Cultural Sensitivity of Online Patient Educational Materials (PEMs) for Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Study.

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 SURGERY
Plastic surgery Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-07 DOI:10.1177/22925503221120548
Anamika Veeramani, Anna Rose Johnson, Bernard T Lee, Arriyan S Dowlatshahi
{"title":"Readability, Understandability, Usability, and Cultural Sensitivity of Online Patient Educational Materials (PEMs) for Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A Cross-Sectional Study.","authors":"Anamika Veeramani, Anna Rose Johnson, Bernard T Lee, Arriyan S Dowlatshahi","doi":"10.1177/22925503221120548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Lower extremity reconstructive surgery is an evolving field wherein patients rely on accessible online materials to engage with their perioperative care. This study furthers existing research in this area by evaluating the readability, understandability, actionability, and cultural sensitivity of online health materials for lower extremity reconstruction. <b>Methods:</b> We identified the 10 first-appearing, educational sites found by searching the phrases \"leg saving surgery\", \"limb salvage surgery,\" and \"leg reconstruction surgery\". Readability analysis was conducted with validated tools, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were assessed with Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), while cultural sensitivity was measured with Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT). A Cohen's κ value was calculated (PEMAT and CSAT analyses) for inter-rater agreement. <b>Results:</b> The mean SMOG reading level for websites was 13.12 (college-freshman reading level). The mean PEMAT understandability score was 61.8% and actionability score was 26.0% (κ = 0.8022), both below the 70% acceptability threshold. The mean CSAT score was 2.6 (κ = 0.73), exceeding the 2.5 threshold for cultural appropriateness. <b>Conclusion:</b> Online PEM for lower extremity reconstruction continue to fall below standards of readability, understandability, and actionability; however, they meet standards of cultural appropriateness. As patients rely on these materials, creators can use validated tools and positive examples from existing PEM for greater patient accessibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":20206,"journal":{"name":"Plastic surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11298135/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22925503221120548","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Lower extremity reconstructive surgery is an evolving field wherein patients rely on accessible online materials to engage with their perioperative care. This study furthers existing research in this area by evaluating the readability, understandability, actionability, and cultural sensitivity of online health materials for lower extremity reconstruction. Methods: We identified the 10 first-appearing, educational sites found by searching the phrases "leg saving surgery", "limb salvage surgery," and "leg reconstruction surgery". Readability analysis was conducted with validated tools, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were assessed with Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), while cultural sensitivity was measured with Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT). A Cohen's κ value was calculated (PEMAT and CSAT analyses) for inter-rater agreement. Results: The mean SMOG reading level for websites was 13.12 (college-freshman reading level). The mean PEMAT understandability score was 61.8% and actionability score was 26.0% (κ = 0.8022), both below the 70% acceptability threshold. The mean CSAT score was 2.6 (κ = 0.73), exceeding the 2.5 threshold for cultural appropriateness. Conclusion: Online PEM for lower extremity reconstruction continue to fall below standards of readability, understandability, and actionability; however, they meet standards of cultural appropriateness. As patients rely on these materials, creators can use validated tools and positive examples from existing PEM for greater patient accessibility.

用于下肢重建的在线患者教育材料的可读性、可理解性、可用性和文化敏感性:一项横断面研究
背景:下肢重建手术是一个不断发展的领域,患者依靠可访问的在线材料来参与围手术期护理。本研究通过评估用于下肢重建的在线健康材料的可读性、可理解性、可操作性和文化敏感性,进一步推进了该领域的现有研究。方法:我们通过搜索短语“保腿手术”、“保肢手术”和“腿部重建手术”,确定了10个首次出现的教育网站。可读性分析是用经过验证的工具进行的,包括Gobbledygouk的简单测量(SMOG)。使用患者教育和材料评估工具(PEMAT)评估可理解性和可操作性,而使用文化敏感性评估工具(CSAT)测量文化敏感性。计算评分者间一致性的Cohenκ值(PEMAT和CSAT分析)。结果:网站的平均SMOG阅读水平为13.12(大学新生阅读水平)。PEMAT的平均可理解性得分为61.8%,可操作性得分为26.0%(κ = 0.8022),均低于70%的可接受性阈值。平均CSAT评分为2.6(κ = 0.73),超过了2.5的文化适宜性阈值。结论:用于下肢重建的在线PEM仍然低于可读性、可理解性和可操作性的标准;然而,它们符合文化适宜性的标准。由于患者依赖这些材料,创作者可以使用经过验证的工具和现有PEM中的积极例子,以提高患者的可及性。
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
Plastic surgery
Plastic surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: Plastic Surgery (Chirurgie Plastique) is the official journal of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons, the Canadian Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, Group for the Advancement of Microsurgery, and the Canadian Society for Surgery of the Hand. It serves as a major venue for Canadian research, society guidelines, and continuing medical education.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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