乳腺癌英语在线患者教育材料的系统回顾和荟萃分析:只有可读性吗?

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Joey Z. Gu , Grayson L. Baird , Antonio Escamilla Guevara , Young-Jin Sohn , Melis Lydston , Christopher Doyle , Sarah E.A. Tevis , Randy C. Miles
{"title":"乳腺癌英语在线患者教育材料的系统回顾和荟萃分析:只有可读性吗?","authors":"Joey Z. Gu ,&nbsp;Grayson L. Baird ,&nbsp;Antonio Escamilla Guevara ,&nbsp;Young-Jin Sohn ,&nbsp;Melis Lydston ,&nbsp;Christopher Doyle ,&nbsp;Sarah E.A. Tevis ,&nbsp;Randy C. Miles","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, <span>Embase.com</span><svg><path></path></svg>, CENTRAL via Ovid, and <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p &lt; 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"75 ","pages":"Article 103722"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000535/pdfft?md5=53c1765a3d1442f82d22e4d55e6f421e&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624000535-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?\",\"authors\":\"Joey Z. Gu ,&nbsp;Grayson L. Baird ,&nbsp;Antonio Escamilla Guevara ,&nbsp;Young-Jin Sohn ,&nbsp;Melis Lydston ,&nbsp;Christopher Doyle ,&nbsp;Sarah E.A. Tevis ,&nbsp;Randy C. Miles\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.breast.2024.103722\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability.</p></div><div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, <span>Embase.com</span><svg><path></path></svg>, CENTRAL via Ovid, and <span>ClinicalTrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg> in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p &lt; 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast\",\"volume\":\"75 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103722\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000535/pdfft?md5=53c1765a3d1442f82d22e4d55e6f421e&pid=1-s2.0-S0960977624000535-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000535\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960977624000535","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景在线患者教育材料(OPEM)是越来越多的女性寻求乳腺癌相关信息的热门资源。美国医学会(AMA)建议书面患者材料应达到或低于六年级水平,以满足公众的健康素养要求。质量、可理解性和可操作性等指标也在很大程度上影响着健康信息的可用性,因此应与可读性一起进行评估:1) 乳腺癌可读性研究的平均可读性评分和报告方法;以及 2) 其他健康素养相关指标的纳入频率。材料和方法 2022 年 6 月,根据 PRISMA 2020 声明,在 Ovid MEDLINE、Web of Science、Embase.com、CENTRAL via Ovid 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 中进行了注册系统综述和荟萃分析。符合条件的研究对英文版乳腺癌相关 OPEM 进行了可读性分析。提取了研究特征、可读性数据以及非可读性健康素养指标报告。荟萃分析的估计值来自广义线性混合模型。总体而言,平均可读性为 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]),按 OPEM 类别分组后差异显著 (p < 0.001)。商业机构的平均可读性最高,为 12.2 [11.3,13.0] ;非营利机构的平均可读性最低,为 11.3 [10.6,12.0] 。可读性也因指数而异,New Fog、Lexile 和 FORCAST 的平均得分最低(分别为 9.4 [8.6,10.3]、10.4 [10.0,10.8] 和 10.7 [10.2,11.1])。只有 57% 的研究用两个以上的指数来计算平均可读性。只有 60% 的研究评估了与健康素养相关的其他 OPEM 指标。目前的文献对可读性和其他健康素养相关指标的报告并不一致。未来可读性研究的标准化将重点放在对患者材料的整体评估上,这将有助于共同决策,对提高筛查率和乳腺癌认知度至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A systematic review and meta-analysis of English language online patient education materials in breast cancer: Is readability the only story?

Background

Online patient education materials (OPEMs) are an increasingly popular resource for women seeking information about breast cancer. The AMA recommends written patient material to be at or below a 6th grade level to meet the general public's health literacy. Metrics such as quality, understandability, and actionability also heavily influence the usability of health information, and thus should be evaluated alongside readability.

Purpose

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to determine: 1) Average readability scores and reporting methodologies of breast cancer readability studies; and 2) Inclusion frequency of additional health literacy-associated metrics.

Materials and methods

A registered systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase.com, CENTRAL via Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2022 in adherence with the PRISMA 2020 statement. Eligible studies performed readability analyses on English-language breast cancer-related OPEMs. Study characteristics, readability data, and reporting of non-readability health literacy metrics were extracted. Meta-analysis estimates were derived from generalized linear mixed modeling.

Results

The meta-analysis included 30 studies yielding 4462 OPEMs. Overall, average readability was 11.81 (95% CI [11.14, 12.49]), with a significant difference (p < 0.001) when grouped by OPEM categories. Commercial organizations had the highest average readability at 12.2 [11.3,13.0]; non-profit organizations had one of the lowest at 11.3 [10.6,12.0]. Readability also varied by index, with New Fog, Lexile, and FORCAST having the lowest average scores (9.4 [8.6, 10.3], 10.4 [10.0, 10.8], and 10.7 [10.2, 11.1], respectively). Only 57% of studies calculated average readability with more than two indices. Only 60% of studies assessed other OPEM metrics associated with health literacy.

Conclusion

Average readability of breast cancer OPEMs is nearly double the AMA's recommended 6th grade level. Readability and other health literacy-associated metrics are inconsistently reported in the current literature. Standardization of future readability studies, with a focus on holistic evaluation of patient materials, may aid shared decision-making and be critical to increased screening rates and breast cancer awareness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
×
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