患者决策辅助工具对健康素养有限者的包容性如何?对可理解性标准以及选项和概率沟通的分析。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Medical Decision Making Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-14 DOI:10.1177/0272989X241302288
Romy Richter, Jesse Jansen, Josine van der Kraan, Wais Abbaspoor, Iris Bongaerts, Fleur Pouwels, Celine Vilters, Jany Rademakers, Trudy van der Weijden
{"title":"患者决策辅助工具对健康素养有限者的包容性如何?对可理解性标准以及选项和概率沟通的分析。","authors":"Romy Richter, Jesse Jansen, Josine van der Kraan, Wais Abbaspoor, Iris Bongaerts, Fleur Pouwels, Celine Vilters, Jany Rademakers, Trudy van der Weijden","doi":"10.1177/0272989X241302288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7-8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5-7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL.Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame.Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":" ","pages":"143-155"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736975/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.\",\"authors\":\"Romy Richter, Jesse Jansen, Josine van der Kraan, Wais Abbaspoor, Iris Bongaerts, Fleur Pouwels, Celine Vilters, Jany Rademakers, Trudy van der Weijden\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0272989X241302288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7-8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5-7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL.Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame.Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49839,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"143-155\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736975/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical Decision Making\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241302288\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X241302288","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者决策辅助工具(ptda)可支持共同决策。我们的目的是通过分析1)使用既定标准的ptda的可理解性,2)如何沟通结果的选择和概率,以及3)遵循风险沟通(RC)指南的程度,来探索ptda对健康素养有限(LHL)人群的包容性。方法:在描述性文献分析中,我们分析了2021年符合国际患者决策辅助标准的荷兰ptda。我们开发并试点测试了一种基于关键RC和健康素养文献的数据提取表。结果:大多数ptda(151/198)在排版(8项中7-8项)如字体大小等方面符合大部分可理解性标准,但在内容方面(121/198)如医学术语的定义等方面不符合可理解性标准(12项中5-7项)。198个ptda中只有31个使用了简短的句子结构。大多数ptda提供2至4种治疗方案。许多人遵循RC的建议,如使用数值RC策略,如百分比或自然频率(160/198)和视觉格式,如图标数组(91/198)。只有10个使用中性框架(10/198)。不确定度以口头形式(134/198)或范围形式(58/198)呈现。与LHL患者共同创建了4个ptda,仅使用口头RC或不使用RC。结论:大多数ptda在布局上符合大部分可理解性标准,但在内容方面和对RC策略的依从性方面有待改进。许多ptda使用长句子和大部分口头RC,因此可能不适合LHL患者。需要进一步研究适合LHL患者的PtDA特征和RC策略。尽管符合大多数可理解性标准,但许多荷兰ptda使用长句子,这可能阻碍LHL患者的理解。大多数荷兰ptda都遵循既定的风险沟通建议,但在某些策略方面仍有改进空间,例如框架和明确的时间框架。总的来说,需要更多的研究来定制ptda以满足LHL患者的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How Inclusive Are Patient Decision Aids for People with Limited Health Literacy? An Analysis of Understandability Criteria and the Communication about Options and Probabilities.

Objective: Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can support shared decision making. We aimed to explore how inclusive PtDAs are for people with limited health literacy (LHL) by analyzing 1) the understandability of PtDAs using established criteria, 2) how options and probabilities of outcomes are communicated, and 3) the extent to which risk communication (RC) guidelines are followed.

Methods: In a descriptive document analysis, we analyzed Dutch PtDAs available in 2021 that met the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. We developed and pilot tested a data extraction form based on key RC and health literacy literature.

Results: Most PtDAs (151/198) met most of the understandability criteria on layout (7-8 out of 8 items) such as font size but not on content aspects (121/198 PtDAs scored 5-7 out of 12 items) such as defining medical terms. Only 31 of 198 PtDAs used a short and simple sentence structure. Most PtDAs presented 2 to 4 treatment options. Many followed RC recommendations such as the use of numerical RC strategies such as percentages or natural frequencies (160/198) and visual formats such as icon arrays (91/198). Only 10 used neutral framing (10/198). When presented, uncertainty was presented verbally (134/198) or in ranges (58/198). Four PtDAs were co-created together with patients with LHL and used only verbal RC or no RC.

Conclusion: Most PtDAs met most of the understandability criteria on layout, but content aspects and adherence to RC strategies can be improved. Many PtDAs used long sentences and mostly verbal RC and are therefore likely to be inappropriate for patients with LHL. Further research is needed on PtDA characteristics and RC strategies suitable for people with LHL.

Highlights: Despite meeting most criteria for understandability, many of the Dutch PtDAs use long sentences, which likely impede comprehension for patients with LHL.Most of the Dutch PtDAs follow established recommendations for risk communication, with room for improvement for some strategies such as framing and a clear reference to the time frame.Overall, more research is needed to tailor PtDAs to the needs of people with LHL.

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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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