Julian Risch, Konrad Hügelmann, Leonhard Buck, Hans-Christoph von Knobloch, Jakob Kohler, Reha-Baris Incesu, Marie-Luise Weiss, Philipp Nuhn, Jonas Jarczyk, Severin Rodler
{"title":"前列腺癌患者教育材料的可读性:使用可读性指标的综合评估。","authors":"Julian Risch, Konrad Hügelmann, Leonhard Buck, Hans-Christoph von Knobloch, Jakob Kohler, Reha-Baris Incesu, Marie-Luise Weiss, Philipp Nuhn, Jonas Jarczyk, Severin Rodler","doi":"10.1159/000548884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Patient education materials (PEMs) play a vital role in ensuring patients understand their medical conditions and treatment options. In prostate cancer, complex medical terminology can hamper comprehension and informed decision-making. This study evaluates the readability of prostate cancer PEMs to determine if they meet recommended standards for lay audiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A selection of standardized prostate cancer PEMs, including standard surgical consent forms and patient brochures from major German cancer organizations, was analyzed. Readability was assessed using established metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of 70 (at or below a seventh-grade reading level) and the other readability indexes ≤7, following European Union recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs of both surgical consent forms and patient brochures did not meet the recommended thresholds set by the European Union for layperson summaries. The median FRES for consent forms was 25.9 (SD: 1.52), ranging from 24.3 (prostate biopsy) to 28.0 (open RPx). Patient brochures showed a median FRES of 23.2 (SD: 2.87), with scores of 23.2 (German Cancer Aid), 22.5 (DKFZ), and 28.9 (S3-Guidelines). Section-specific values varied, with the highest FRES observed in the \"Basic Explanation and Screening\" section of the S3-Guidelines (39.0, SD: 7.09) and the lowest in the \"Follow-Up\" section of the German Cancer Aid brochure (15.8, SD: 10.35). All grade-level metrics (FKGL, GFS, SMOG, CLI, ARI) exceeded the recommended level of grade 7.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs in Germany falls short of recommended thresholds for lay comprehension. To enhance clarity and accessibility, the use of automated readability tools and standardized benchmarks (e.g., FRES ≥70, grade level ≤7) is recommended. Involving multidisciplinary teams may further support the development of patient-centered content. Future research should combine readability metrics with patient feedback to evaluate real-world comprehension and usability.</p>","PeriodicalId":23414,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readability of Prostate Cancer Patient Education Materials: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Readability Metrics.\",\"authors\":\"Julian Risch, Konrad Hügelmann, Leonhard Buck, Hans-Christoph von Knobloch, Jakob Kohler, Reha-Baris Incesu, Marie-Luise Weiss, Philipp Nuhn, Jonas Jarczyk, Severin Rodler\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000548884\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Patient education materials (PEMs) play a vital role in ensuring patients understand their medical conditions and treatment options. In prostate cancer, complex medical terminology can hamper comprehension and informed decision-making. This study evaluates the readability of prostate cancer PEMs to determine if they meet recommended standards for lay audiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A selection of standardized prostate cancer PEMs, including standard surgical consent forms and patient brochures from major German cancer organizations, was analyzed. Readability was assessed using established metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of 70 (at or below a seventh-grade reading level) and the other readability indexes ≤7, following European Union recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs of both surgical consent forms and patient brochures did not meet the recommended thresholds set by the European Union for layperson summaries. The median FRES for consent forms was 25.9 (SD: 1.52), ranging from 24.3 (prostate biopsy) to 28.0 (open RPx). Patient brochures showed a median FRES of 23.2 (SD: 2.87), with scores of 23.2 (German Cancer Aid), 22.5 (DKFZ), and 28.9 (S3-Guidelines). Section-specific values varied, with the highest FRES observed in the \\\"Basic Explanation and Screening\\\" section of the S3-Guidelines (39.0, SD: 7.09) and the lowest in the \\\"Follow-Up\\\" section of the German Cancer Aid brochure (15.8, SD: 10.35). All grade-level metrics (FKGL, GFS, SMOG, CLI, ARI) exceeded the recommended level of grade 7.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs in Germany falls short of recommended thresholds for lay comprehension. To enhance clarity and accessibility, the use of automated readability tools and standardized benchmarks (e.g., FRES ≥70, grade level ≤7) is recommended. Involving multidisciplinary teams may further support the development of patient-centered content. Future research should combine readability metrics with patient feedback to evaluate real-world comprehension and usability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23414,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urologia Internationalis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urologia Internationalis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548884\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景和目的:患者教育材料(PEMs)在确保患者了解他们的医疗条件和治疗方案方面发挥着至关重要的作用。在前列腺癌中,复杂的医学术语会妨碍理解和明智的决策。本研究评估前列腺癌PEMs的可读性,以确定它们是否符合外行观众的推荐标准。方法:选择标准化的前列腺癌pms,包括标准手术同意书和来自德国主要癌症组织的患者手册,进行分析。采用已建立的指标评估可读性,包括Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES)、Flesch- kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)、Gunning Fog Score (GFS)、Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index、Coleman-Liau Index (CLI)和Automated readable Index (ARI)。根据欧盟的建议,外行人的可读性被定义为FRES为70(等于或低于七年级的阅读水平),其他可读性指标≤7。结果:前列腺癌手术同意书和患者手册的PEMs的可读性均未达到欧盟为外行摘要设定的推荐阈值。同意书的中位FRES为25.9 (SD: 1.52),范围从24.3(前列腺活检)到28.0(开放RPx)。患者手册显示中位FRES为23.2 (SD: 2.87),评分为23.2(德国癌症援助),22.5 (DKFZ)和28.9 (S3-Guidelines)。不同部位的FRES值不同,在s3指南的“基本解释和筛查”部分观察到的FRES最高(39.0,SD: 7.09),在德国癌症援助手册的“随访”部分观察到的FRES最低(15.8,SD: 10.35)。所有年级指标(FKGL、GFS、SMOG、CLI、ARI)均超过7级推荐水平。结论:德国前列腺癌PEMs的可读性低于外行理解的推荐阈值。为了提高清晰度和可访问性,建议使用自动可读性工具和标准化基准(例如,FRES≥70,等级水平≤7)。多学科团队的参与可以进一步支持以患者为中心的内容的发展。未来的研究应该将可读性指标与患者反馈结合起来,以评估现实世界的理解和可用性。
Readability of Prostate Cancer Patient Education Materials: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Readability Metrics.
Background and objective: Patient education materials (PEMs) play a vital role in ensuring patients understand their medical conditions and treatment options. In prostate cancer, complex medical terminology can hamper comprehension and informed decision-making. This study evaluates the readability of prostate cancer PEMs to determine if they meet recommended standards for lay audiences.
Methods: A selection of standardized prostate cancer PEMs, including standard surgical consent forms and patient brochures from major German cancer organizations, was analyzed. Readability was assessed using established metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of 70 (at or below a seventh-grade reading level) and the other readability indexes ≤7, following European Union recommendations.
Results: The readability of prostate cancer PEMs of both surgical consent forms and patient brochures did not meet the recommended thresholds set by the European Union for layperson summaries. The median FRES for consent forms was 25.9 (SD: 1.52), ranging from 24.3 (prostate biopsy) to 28.0 (open RPx). Patient brochures showed a median FRES of 23.2 (SD: 2.87), with scores of 23.2 (German Cancer Aid), 22.5 (DKFZ), and 28.9 (S3-Guidelines). Section-specific values varied, with the highest FRES observed in the "Basic Explanation and Screening" section of the S3-Guidelines (39.0, SD: 7.09) and the lowest in the "Follow-Up" section of the German Cancer Aid brochure (15.8, SD: 10.35). All grade-level metrics (FKGL, GFS, SMOG, CLI, ARI) exceeded the recommended level of grade 7.
Conclusion: The readability of prostate cancer PEMs in Germany falls short of recommended thresholds for lay comprehension. To enhance clarity and accessibility, the use of automated readability tools and standardized benchmarks (e.g., FRES ≥70, grade level ≤7) is recommended. Involving multidisciplinary teams may further support the development of patient-centered content. Future research should combine readability metrics with patient feedback to evaluate real-world comprehension and usability.
期刊介绍:
Concise but fully substantiated international reports of clinically oriented research into science and current management of urogenital disorders form the nucleus of original as well as basic research papers. These are supplemented by up-to-date reviews by international experts on the state-of-the-art of key topics of clinical urological practice. Essential topics receiving regular coverage include the introduction of new techniques and instrumentation as well as the evaluation of new functional tests and diagnostic methods. Special attention is given to advances in surgical techniques and clinical oncology. The regular publication of selected case reports represents the great variation in urological disease and illustrates treatment solutions in singular cases.