世界卫生组织耐药结核病 6 个月和 9 个月全口服短期治疗所用抗生素面向患者信息的可读性。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Lung Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-26 DOI:10.1007/s00408-024-00732-z
John E Moore, Beverley C Millar
{"title":"世界卫生组织耐药结核病 6 个月和 9 个月全口服短期治疗所用抗生素面向患者信息的可读性。","authors":"John E Moore, Beverley C Millar","doi":"10.1007/s00408-024-00732-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Readability of patient-facing information of oral antibiotics detailed in the WHO all oral short (6 months, 9 months) has not been described to date. The aim of this study was therefore to examine (i) how readable patient-facing TB antibiotic information is compared to readability reference standards and (ii) if there are differences in readability between high-incidence countries versus low-incidence countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten antibiotics, including bedaquiline, clofazimine, ethambutol, ethionamide, isoniazid, levofloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, pretomanid, pyrazinamide, were investigated. TB antibiotic information sources were examined, consisting of 85 Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) and 40 antibiotic web resouces. Of these 85 PILs, 72 were taken from the National Medicines Regulator from six countries (3 TB high-incidence [Rwanda, Malaysia, South Africa] + 3 TB low-incidence [UK, Ireland, Malta] countries). Readability data was grouped into three categories, including (i) high TB-incidence countries (n = 33 information sources), (ii) low TB-incidence countries (n = 39 information sources) and (iii) web information (n = 53). Readability was calculated using Readable software, to obtain four readability scores [(i) Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), (ii) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), (iii) Gunning Fog Index and (iv) SMOG Index], as well as two text metrics [words/sentence, syllables/word].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean readability scores of patient-facing TB antibiotic information for FRE and FKGL, were 47.4 ± 12.6 (sd) (target ≥ 60) and 9.2 ± 2.0 (target ≤ 8.0), respectively. There was no significant difference in readability between low incidence countries and web resources, but there was significantly poorer readability associated with PILs from high incidence countries versus low incidence countries (FRE; p = 0.0056: FKGL; p = 0.0095).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Readability of TB antibiotic PILs is poor. Improving readability of PILs should be an important objective when preparing patient-facing written materials, thereby improving patient health/treatment literacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":18163,"journal":{"name":"Lung","volume":" ","pages":"741-751"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427546/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readability of Patient-Facing Information of Antibiotics Used in the WHO Short 6-Month and 9-Month All Oral Treatment for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.\",\"authors\":\"John E Moore, Beverley C Millar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00408-024-00732-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Readability of patient-facing information of oral antibiotics detailed in the WHO all oral short (6 months, 9 months) has not been described to date. The aim of this study was therefore to examine (i) how readable patient-facing TB antibiotic information is compared to readability reference standards and (ii) if there are differences in readability between high-incidence countries versus low-incidence countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten antibiotics, including bedaquiline, clofazimine, ethambutol, ethionamide, isoniazid, levofloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, pretomanid, pyrazinamide, were investigated. TB antibiotic information sources were examined, consisting of 85 Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) and 40 antibiotic web resouces. Of these 85 PILs, 72 were taken from the National Medicines Regulator from six countries (3 TB high-incidence [Rwanda, Malaysia, South Africa] + 3 TB low-incidence [UK, Ireland, Malta] countries). Readability data was grouped into three categories, including (i) high TB-incidence countries (n = 33 information sources), (ii) low TB-incidence countries (n = 39 information sources) and (iii) web information (n = 53). Readability was calculated using Readable software, to obtain four readability scores [(i) Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), (ii) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), (iii) Gunning Fog Index and (iv) SMOG Index], as well as two text metrics [words/sentence, syllables/word].</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean readability scores of patient-facing TB antibiotic information for FRE and FKGL, were 47.4 ± 12.6 (sd) (target ≥ 60) and 9.2 ± 2.0 (target ≤ 8.0), respectively. There was no significant difference in readability between low incidence countries and web resources, but there was significantly poorer readability associated with PILs from high incidence countries versus low incidence countries (FRE; p = 0.0056: FKGL; p = 0.0095).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Readability of TB antibiotic PILs is poor. Improving readability of PILs should be an important objective when preparing patient-facing written materials, thereby improving patient health/treatment literacy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Lung\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"741-751\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11427546/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Lung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-024-00732-z\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lung","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00408-024-00732-z","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:世界卫生组织所有口服短片(6 个月、9 个月)中详细介绍的面向患者的口服抗生素信息的可读性迄今尚未得到描述。因此,本研究的目的是:(i) 与可读性参考标准相比,面向患者的结核病抗生素信息的可读性如何;(ii) 高发病率国家与低发病率国家之间的可读性是否存在差异:调查了 10 种抗生素,包括贝达喹啉、氯法齐明、乙胺丁醇、乙琥胺、异烟肼、左氧氟沙星、利奈唑胺、莫西沙星、丙托马尼、吡嗪酰胺。对结核病抗生素信息来源进行了研究,包括 85 份《患者信息手册》(PIL)和 40 个抗生素网络资源。在这 85 份患者信息手册中,72 份来自六个国家(3 个结核病高发国 [卢旺达、马来西亚、南非] + 3 个结核病低发国 [英国、爱尔兰、马耳他])的国家药品监管机构。可读性数据分为三类,包括:(i) 结核病高发国家(n = 33 个信息来源);(ii) 结核病低发国家(n = 39 个信息来源);(iii) 网络信息(n = 53)。使用 Readable 软件计算可读性,得出四个可读性分数[(i) Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)、(ii) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)、(iii) Gunning Fog Index 和 (iv) SMOG Index],以及两个文本指标[单词/句、音节/单词]:面向患者的结核病抗生素信息在 FRE 和 FKGL 中的平均可读性得分分别为 47.4 ± 12.6 (sd)(目标值≥ 60)和 9.2 ± 2.0(目标值≤ 8.0)。低发病率国家和网络资源的可读性没有明显差异,但高发病率国家的 PIL 与低发病率国家的 PIL 相比,可读性明显较差(FRE; p = 0.0056: FKGL; p = 0.0095):结论:结核病抗生素 PIL 的可读性较差。结论:结核病抗生素 PIL 的可读性较差。在准备面向患者的书面材料时,应将提高 PIL 的可读性作为一个重要目标,从而提高患者的健康/治疗素养。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Readability of Patient-Facing Information of Antibiotics Used in the WHO Short 6-Month and 9-Month All Oral Treatment for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Readability of Patient-Facing Information of Antibiotics Used in the WHO Short 6-Month and 9-Month All Oral Treatment for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis.

Objectives: Readability of patient-facing information of oral antibiotics detailed in the WHO all oral short (6 months, 9 months) has not been described to date. The aim of this study was therefore to examine (i) how readable patient-facing TB antibiotic information is compared to readability reference standards and (ii) if there are differences in readability between high-incidence countries versus low-incidence countries.

Methods: Ten antibiotics, including bedaquiline, clofazimine, ethambutol, ethionamide, isoniazid, levofloxacin, linezolid, moxifloxacin, pretomanid, pyrazinamide, were investigated. TB antibiotic information sources were examined, consisting of 85 Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) and 40 antibiotic web resouces. Of these 85 PILs, 72 were taken from the National Medicines Regulator from six countries (3 TB high-incidence [Rwanda, Malaysia, South Africa] + 3 TB low-incidence [UK, Ireland, Malta] countries). Readability data was grouped into three categories, including (i) high TB-incidence countries (n = 33 information sources), (ii) low TB-incidence countries (n = 39 information sources) and (iii) web information (n = 53). Readability was calculated using Readable software, to obtain four readability scores [(i) Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), (ii) Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), (iii) Gunning Fog Index and (iv) SMOG Index], as well as two text metrics [words/sentence, syllables/word].

Results: Mean readability scores of patient-facing TB antibiotic information for FRE and FKGL, were 47.4 ± 12.6 (sd) (target ≥ 60) and 9.2 ± 2.0 (target ≤ 8.0), respectively. There was no significant difference in readability between low incidence countries and web resources, but there was significantly poorer readability associated with PILs from high incidence countries versus low incidence countries (FRE; p = 0.0056: FKGL; p = 0.0095).

Conclusions: Readability of TB antibiotic PILs is poor. Improving readability of PILs should be an important objective when preparing patient-facing written materials, thereby improving patient health/treatment literacy.

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
Lung
Lung 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
10.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Lung publishes original articles, reviews and editorials on all aspects of the healthy and diseased lungs, of the airways, and of breathing. Epidemiological, clinical, pathophysiological, biochemical, and pharmacological studies fall within the scope of the journal. Case reports, short communications and technical notes can be accepted if they are of particular interest.
×
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