{"title":"评估癌症疼痛干预的在线患者教育材料的可用性、可读性和内容:对主要癌症中心网站的横断面分析","authors":"Meha Aggarwal , Marshall Yuan , David Hao","doi":"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As cancer survival improves, chronic cancer-related pain is an increasing clinical concern. Interventional procedures offer targeted, opioid-sparing pain relief, yet the quality and readability of online educational materials about these options remain poorly understood.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the availability, quality, and readability of online educational resources on interventional cancer pain management available from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 65 NCI-designated clinical cancer center websites to identify patient-facing content discussing interventional cancer pain procedures. Eligible materials were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument and for readability using seven validated metrics. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Only 20 of 65 cancer center websites (31%) contained relevant educational materials. Sixty qualifying texts were identified: 28 full articles and 32 substantial mentions (≥50 words). The mean DISCERN score was 37 ± 9, indicating poor quality. Articles scored significantly higher than substantial mentions (mean difference 9.4 points, p < 0.001). The ICC for DISCERN scores was 0.872 (p < 0.001), reflecting good inter-rater agreement. Readability analysis revealed an average reading level equivalent to the 11th grade across all metrics, significantly higher than the NIH-recommended 8th-grade level (p < 0.001). Substantial mentions were significantly more difficult to read than articles (p < 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Online materials on cancer pain interventions are generally scarce, low in quality, and written above nationally recommended reading levels. These findings highlight the need for cancer centers to improve online education materials using plain language and health literacy tools to better support informed decision-making.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100727,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Pain Medicine","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100633"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing the availability, readability, and content of online patient Education materials for cancer pain interventions: A cross-sectional analysis of major cancer center websites\",\"authors\":\"Meha Aggarwal , Marshall Yuan , David Hao\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.inpm.2025.100633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>As cancer survival improves, chronic cancer-related pain is an increasing clinical concern. Interventional procedures offer targeted, opioid-sparing pain relief, yet the quality and readability of online educational materials about these options remain poorly understood.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To evaluate the availability, quality, and readability of online educational resources on interventional cancer pain management available from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 65 NCI-designated clinical cancer center websites to identify patient-facing content discussing interventional cancer pain procedures. Eligible materials were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument and for readability using seven validated metrics. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Only 20 of 65 cancer center websites (31%) contained relevant educational materials. Sixty qualifying texts were identified: 28 full articles and 32 substantial mentions (≥50 words). The mean DISCERN score was 37 ± 9, indicating poor quality. Articles scored significantly higher than substantial mentions (mean difference 9.4 points, p < 0.001). The ICC for DISCERN scores was 0.872 (p < 0.001), reflecting good inter-rater agreement. Readability analysis revealed an average reading level equivalent to the 11th grade across all metrics, significantly higher than the NIH-recommended 8th-grade level (p < 0.001). Substantial mentions were significantly more difficult to read than articles (p < 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Online materials on cancer pain interventions are generally scarce, low in quality, and written above nationally recommended reading levels. These findings highlight the need for cancer centers to improve online education materials using plain language and health literacy tools to better support informed decision-making.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100727,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100633\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Interventional Pain Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000949\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Pain Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772594425000949","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Assessing the availability, readability, and content of online patient Education materials for cancer pain interventions: A cross-sectional analysis of major cancer center websites
Background
As cancer survival improves, chronic cancer-related pain is an increasing clinical concern. Interventional procedures offer targeted, opioid-sparing pain relief, yet the quality and readability of online educational materials about these options remain poorly understood.
Objective
To evaluate the availability, quality, and readability of online educational resources on interventional cancer pain management available from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers.
Methods
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 65 NCI-designated clinical cancer center websites to identify patient-facing content discussing interventional cancer pain procedures. Eligible materials were evaluated for quality using the DISCERN instrument and for readability using seven validated metrics. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Statistical comparisons were performed using t-tests.
Results
Only 20 of 65 cancer center websites (31%) contained relevant educational materials. Sixty qualifying texts were identified: 28 full articles and 32 substantial mentions (≥50 words). The mean DISCERN score was 37 ± 9, indicating poor quality. Articles scored significantly higher than substantial mentions (mean difference 9.4 points, p < 0.001). The ICC for DISCERN scores was 0.872 (p < 0.001), reflecting good inter-rater agreement. Readability analysis revealed an average reading level equivalent to the 11th grade across all metrics, significantly higher than the NIH-recommended 8th-grade level (p < 0.001). Substantial mentions were significantly more difficult to read than articles (p < 0.001).
Conclusions
Online materials on cancer pain interventions are generally scarce, low in quality, and written above nationally recommended reading levels. These findings highlight the need for cancer centers to improve online education materials using plain language and health literacy tools to better support informed decision-making.