评估在线患者信息的质量和可读性:英国耳鼻喉科患者信息电子传单与人工智能生成器的响应对比。

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Eamon Shamil,Tsz Ki Ko,Ka Siu Fan,James Schuster-Bruce,Mustafa Jaafar,Sadie Khwaja,Nicholas Eynon-Lewis,Alwyn Ray D'Souza,Peter Andrews
{"title":"评估在线患者信息的质量和可读性:英国耳鼻喉科患者信息电子传单与人工智能生成器的响应对比。","authors":"Eamon Shamil,Tsz Ki Ko,Ka Siu Fan,James Schuster-Bruce,Mustafa Jaafar,Sadie Khwaja,Nicholas Eynon-Lewis,Alwyn Ray D'Souza,Peter Andrews","doi":"10.1055/a-2413-3675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThe evolution of artificial intelligence has introduced new ways to disseminate health information, including natural language processing models like ChatGPT. However, the quality and readability of such digitally-generated information remains understudied. This study is the first to compare the quality and readability of digitally-generated health information against leaflets produced by professionals.\r\n\r\nMETHODOLOGY\r\nPatient information leaflets for five ENT UK leaflets and their corresponding ChatGPT responses were extracted from the Internet. Assessors with various degree of medical knowledge evaluated the content using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool and readability tools including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between leaflets, assessors, and sources of information.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nENT UK leaflets were of moderate quality, scoring a median EQIP of 23. Statistically significant differences in overall EQIP score were identified between ENT UK leaflets but ChatGPT responses were of uniform quality. Non-specialist doctors rated the highest EQIP scores while medical students scored the lowest. The mean readability of ENT UK leaflets was higher than ChatGPT responses. The information metrics of ENT UK leaflets were moderate and varied between topics. Equivalent ChatGPT information provided comparable content quality, but with reduced readability.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nChatGPT patient information and professionally-produced leaflets had comparable content, but LLM content were required a higher reading age. With the increasing use of online health resources, this study highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers optimises both the quality and readability of patient education materials.","PeriodicalId":12195,"journal":{"name":"Facial Plastic Surgery","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the quality and readability of online patient information: ENT UK patient information e-leaflets vs responses by a Generative Artificial Intelligence.\",\"authors\":\"Eamon Shamil,Tsz Ki Ko,Ka Siu Fan,James Schuster-Bruce,Mustafa Jaafar,Sadie Khwaja,Nicholas Eynon-Lewis,Alwyn Ray D'Souza,Peter Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2413-3675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThe evolution of artificial intelligence has introduced new ways to disseminate health information, including natural language processing models like ChatGPT. However, the quality and readability of such digitally-generated information remains understudied. This study is the first to compare the quality and readability of digitally-generated health information against leaflets produced by professionals.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODOLOGY\\r\\nPatient information leaflets for five ENT UK leaflets and their corresponding ChatGPT responses were extracted from the Internet. Assessors with various degree of medical knowledge evaluated the content using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool and readability tools including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between leaflets, assessors, and sources of information.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nENT UK leaflets were of moderate quality, scoring a median EQIP of 23. Statistically significant differences in overall EQIP score were identified between ENT UK leaflets but ChatGPT responses were of uniform quality. Non-specialist doctors rated the highest EQIP scores while medical students scored the lowest. The mean readability of ENT UK leaflets was higher than ChatGPT responses. The information metrics of ENT UK leaflets were moderate and varied between topics. Equivalent ChatGPT information provided comparable content quality, but with reduced readability.\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nChatGPT patient information and professionally-produced leaflets had comparable content, but LLM content were required a higher reading age. With the increasing use of online health resources, this study highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers optimises both the quality and readability of patient education materials.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12195,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"60 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Facial Plastic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2413-3675\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Facial Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2413-3675","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景人工智能的发展引入了传播健康信息的新方法,包括 ChatGPT 等自然语言处理模型。然而,对这类数字生成信息的质量和可读性的研究仍然不足。本研究首次将数字生成的健康信息的质量和可读性与专业人员制作的传单进行了比较。方法从互联网上提取了英国五家耳鼻喉科医院的患者信息传单及其相应的 ChatGPT 回复。具有不同医学知识水平的评估员使用确保患者信息质量(EQIP)工具和可读性工具(包括弗莱什-金凯德等级水平(FKGL))对内容进行了评估。结果 英国的宣传单质量中等,EQIP 中位数为 23 分。英国耳鼻喉科传单之间的总体 EQIP 分数存在明显的统计学差异,但 ChatGPT 的回复质量一致。非专科医生的 EQIP 得分最高,而医科学生的得分最低。耳鼻喉科英国传单的平均可读性高于 ChatGPT 的回复。耳鼻喉科英国传单的信息指标适中,不同主题的信息指标各不相同。结论ChatGPT 患者信息和专业制作的传单内容相当,但 LLM 内容的阅读年龄要求更高。随着在线健康资源的使用越来越多,本研究强调需要采取一种平衡的方法,同时考虑优化患者教育材料的质量和可读性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing the quality and readability of online patient information: ENT UK patient information e-leaflets vs responses by a Generative Artificial Intelligence.
BACKGROUND The evolution of artificial intelligence has introduced new ways to disseminate health information, including natural language processing models like ChatGPT. However, the quality and readability of such digitally-generated information remains understudied. This study is the first to compare the quality and readability of digitally-generated health information against leaflets produced by professionals. METHODOLOGY Patient information leaflets for five ENT UK leaflets and their corresponding ChatGPT responses were extracted from the Internet. Assessors with various degree of medical knowledge evaluated the content using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool and readability tools including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between leaflets, assessors, and sources of information. RESULTS ENT UK leaflets were of moderate quality, scoring a median EQIP of 23. Statistically significant differences in overall EQIP score were identified between ENT UK leaflets but ChatGPT responses were of uniform quality. Non-specialist doctors rated the highest EQIP scores while medical students scored the lowest. The mean readability of ENT UK leaflets was higher than ChatGPT responses. The information metrics of ENT UK leaflets were moderate and varied between topics. Equivalent ChatGPT information provided comparable content quality, but with reduced readability. CONCLUSIONS ChatGPT patient information and professionally-produced leaflets had comparable content, but LLM content were required a higher reading age. With the increasing use of online health resources, this study highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers optimises both the quality and readability of patient education materials.
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
Facial Plastic Surgery
Facial Plastic Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
10.00%
发文量
87
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Facial Plastic Surgery is a journal that publishes topic-specific issues covering areas of aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery as it relates to the head, neck, and face. The journal''s scope includes issues devoted to scar revision, periorbital and mid-face rejuvenation, facial trauma, facial implants, rhinoplasty, neck reconstruction, cleft palate, face lifts, as well as various other emerging minimally invasive procedures. Authors provide a global perspective on each topic, critically evaluate recent works in the field, and apply it to clinical practice.
×
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