Agustin N Posso, Maria J Escobar-Domingo, Audrey Mustoe, Micaela Tobin, James E Fanning, Dhruv Singhal, Bernard T Lee
{"title":"脂水肿在线健康资源的质量评估:多计量分析。","authors":"Agustin N Posso, Maria J Escobar-Domingo, Audrey Mustoe, Micaela Tobin, James E Fanning, Dhruv Singhal, Bernard T Lee","doi":"10.1177/02683555251372218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectiveThe incidence of lipedema is poorly described due to its confusion with lymphedema. Patient education is crucial for treatment and prevention strategies but also for improving healthcare outcomes. This study assessed and compared the quality of English and Spanish online resources for patients suffering from lipedema using a multimetric approach.MethodsA deidentified Google search using the terms \"lipedema\" and \"lipedema español\" was conducted. The first 10 academic/organizational websites in each language were selected. Quality assessment was performed using the Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and facticity criteria to evaluate understandability and actionability, cultural sensitivity, readability, and factual quality, respectively.ResultsEnglish webpages scored 73.70% for understandability and 35.0% for actionability, while Spanish webpages scored 75.05% and 21.0%, respectively; no significant differences were found between languages in understandability (p = .970) and actionability (p = .895). A significantly higher proportion of Spanish resources was found to be culturally sensible than English resources (90% vs 70%; p < .001). However, no significant differences were found in the cultural sensitivity score (English 2.87 vs Spanish 3.01; p = .677). The grade reading level for Spanish materials was significantly lower compared to English materials (11.08 vs 13.45; p = .006). Factual quality was low across both languages according to the facticity framework, though English materials scored higher than Spanish (2.20 vs 1.00; p = .051).ConclusionOur results suggest that online English and Spanish materials on lipedema have inadequate actionability, facticity, and reading grade levels for patients. Nonetheless, the levels of understandability and cultural sensitivity are acceptable. Enhancing the quality of online health literature for lipedema patients presents an opportunity to alleviate psychosocial burdens and address misconceptions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94350,"journal":{"name":"Phlebology","volume":" ","pages":"2683555251372218"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality assessment of online health resources for lipedema: A multimetric analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Agustin N Posso, Maria J Escobar-Domingo, Audrey Mustoe, Micaela Tobin, James E Fanning, Dhruv Singhal, Bernard T Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/02683555251372218\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>ObjectiveThe incidence of lipedema is poorly described due to its confusion with lymphedema. Patient education is crucial for treatment and prevention strategies but also for improving healthcare outcomes. This study assessed and compared the quality of English and Spanish online resources for patients suffering from lipedema using a multimetric approach.MethodsA deidentified Google search using the terms \\\"lipedema\\\" and \\\"lipedema español\\\" was conducted. The first 10 academic/organizational websites in each language were selected. Quality assessment was performed using the Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and facticity criteria to evaluate understandability and actionability, cultural sensitivity, readability, and factual quality, respectively.ResultsEnglish webpages scored 73.70% for understandability and 35.0% for actionability, while Spanish webpages scored 75.05% and 21.0%, respectively; no significant differences were found between languages in understandability (p = .970) and actionability (p = .895). A significantly higher proportion of Spanish resources was found to be culturally sensible than English resources (90% vs 70%; p < .001). However, no significant differences were found in the cultural sensitivity score (English 2.87 vs Spanish 3.01; p = .677). The grade reading level for Spanish materials was significantly lower compared to English materials (11.08 vs 13.45; p = .006). Factual quality was low across both languages according to the facticity framework, though English materials scored higher than Spanish (2.20 vs 1.00; p = .051).ConclusionOur results suggest that online English and Spanish materials on lipedema have inadequate actionability, facticity, and reading grade levels for patients. Nonetheless, the levels of understandability and cultural sensitivity are acceptable. Enhancing the quality of online health literature for lipedema patients presents an opportunity to alleviate psychosocial burdens and address misconceptions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Phlebology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2683555251372218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Phlebology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555251372218\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Phlebology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02683555251372218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的由于脂性水肿与淋巴水肿相混淆,对其发病率的描述很少。患者教育对于治疗和预防策略至关重要,而且对于改善医疗保健结果也至关重要。本研究使用多度量法评估并比较了脂水肿患者的英语和西班牙语在线资源的质量。方法使用“脂水肿”和“脂水肿español”进行识别谷歌搜索。每种语言的前10个学术/组织网站被选出。质量评估采用患者教育和材料评估工具(PEMAT)、文化敏感性评估工具(CSAT)、简单测量的Gobbledygook (SMOG)和事实性标准,分别评估可理解性和可操作性、文化敏感性、可读性和事实质量。结果英语网页的可理解性得分为73.70%,可操作性得分为35.0%,西班牙语网页的可理解性得分为75.05%,可操作性得分为21.0%;两种语言在可理解性(p = .970)和可操作性(p = .895)方面无显著差异。西班牙语资源被发现具有文化敏感性的比例明显高于英语资源(90% vs 70%; p < 0.001)。然而,在文化敏感性评分上没有发现显著差异(英语2.87 vs西班牙语3.01;p = .677)。西班牙语材料的年级阅读水平明显低于英语材料(11.08 vs 13.45; p = 0.006)。根据事实性框架,两种语言的事实质量都较低,尽管英语材料得分高于西班牙语(2.20 vs 1.00; p = 0.051)。结论我们的研究结果表明,在线英语和西班牙语的脂水肿资料在可操作性、真实性和患者阅读等级水平方面存在不足。尽管如此,可理解性和文化敏感性的水平是可以接受的。提高脂水肿患者在线卫生文献的质量为减轻心理社会负担和消除误解提供了机会。
Quality assessment of online health resources for lipedema: A multimetric analysis.
ObjectiveThe incidence of lipedema is poorly described due to its confusion with lymphedema. Patient education is crucial for treatment and prevention strategies but also for improving healthcare outcomes. This study assessed and compared the quality of English and Spanish online resources for patients suffering from lipedema using a multimetric approach.MethodsA deidentified Google search using the terms "lipedema" and "lipedema español" was conducted. The first 10 academic/organizational websites in each language were selected. Quality assessment was performed using the Patient Education and Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and facticity criteria to evaluate understandability and actionability, cultural sensitivity, readability, and factual quality, respectively.ResultsEnglish webpages scored 73.70% for understandability and 35.0% for actionability, while Spanish webpages scored 75.05% and 21.0%, respectively; no significant differences were found between languages in understandability (p = .970) and actionability (p = .895). A significantly higher proportion of Spanish resources was found to be culturally sensible than English resources (90% vs 70%; p < .001). However, no significant differences were found in the cultural sensitivity score (English 2.87 vs Spanish 3.01; p = .677). The grade reading level for Spanish materials was significantly lower compared to English materials (11.08 vs 13.45; p = .006). Factual quality was low across both languages according to the facticity framework, though English materials scored higher than Spanish (2.20 vs 1.00; p = .051).ConclusionOur results suggest that online English and Spanish materials on lipedema have inadequate actionability, facticity, and reading grade levels for patients. Nonetheless, the levels of understandability and cultural sensitivity are acceptable. Enhancing the quality of online health literature for lipedema patients presents an opportunity to alleviate psychosocial burdens and address misconceptions.