Navigating Scar Care: An Evaluation of Scar Treatment Patient Education Materials.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Journal of Burn Care & Research Pub Date : 2024-09-06 DOI:10.1093/jbcr/irae039
Artur Manasyan, Erin Ross, Brigette Cannata, Nicolas Malkoff, Elizabeth Flores, Haig A Yenikomshian, T Justin Gillenwater
{"title":"Navigating Scar Care: An Evaluation of Scar Treatment Patient Education Materials.","authors":"Artur Manasyan, Erin Ross, Brigette Cannata, Nicolas Malkoff, Elizabeth Flores, Haig A Yenikomshian, T Justin Gillenwater","doi":"10.1093/jbcr/irae039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>While patient education materials (PEMs) across various specialties have been reported as being too difficult to read, the quality and understandability of PEMs related to scar management have not been assessed. In this study, we report the breadth of scar management interventions and readability of online PEMs authored by academic societies and university hospitals. Websites of academic medical societies and university hospitals with scar revision PEMs were assessed for relevance. PEM readability was assessed via Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fox Index scores. Understandability and actionability were evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A total of 26 scar revision PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly mentioned scar management interventions were scar revision surgery (73%) and laser scar revision (70%), with minimal emphasis on noninvasive methods like scar massage or sun protection. Readability analysis yielded a mean Flesch reading level of 8.8. Overall, PEMAT understandability of online scar treatment PEMs was moderate, with a median of 76.0% (IQR 71.5%-80.5%). PEMs from all specialties and institution types were lacking in actionability, with median actionability of 40.8% (IQR 38.1%-60.0%). Online scar revision PEMs included a wide breadth of scar management interventions; however, the least costly interventions, such as sun protection and scar massage, were not commonly included. PEMs for scar management could be improved by simplifying language, including visual aids, and including checklists or specific steps, patients can take to take action on scar management interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":15205,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":"1264-1268"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Burn Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irae039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

While patient education materials (PEMs) across various specialties have been reported as being too difficult to read, the quality and understandability of PEMs related to scar management have not been assessed. In this study, we report the breadth of scar management interventions and readability of online PEMs authored by academic societies and university hospitals. Websites of academic medical societies and university hospitals with scar revision PEMs were assessed for relevance. PEM readability was assessed via Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fox Index scores. Understandability and actionability were evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A total of 26 scar revision PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly mentioned scar management interventions were scar revision surgery (73%) and laser scar revision (70%), with minimal emphasis on noninvasive methods like scar massage or sun protection. Readability analysis yielded a mean Flesch reading level of 8.8. Overall, PEMAT understandability of online scar treatment PEMs was moderate, with a median of 76.0% (IQR 71.5%-80.5%). PEMs from all specialties and institution types were lacking in actionability, with median actionability of 40.8% (IQR 38.1%-60.0%). Online scar revision PEMs included a wide breadth of scar management interventions; however, the least costly interventions, such as sun protection and scar massage, were not commonly included. PEMs for scar management could be improved by simplifying language, including visual aids, and including checklists or specific steps, patients can take to take action on scar management interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
疤痕护理导航:疤痕治疗患者教育材料评估。
虽然有报道称各专科的患者教育资料(PEMs)过于难读,但与疤痕管理相关的患者教育资料的质量和可读性尚未得到评估。在本研究中,我们报告了由学术团体和大学医院撰写的疤痕管理干预措施的广泛性和在线 PEM 的可读性。我们对学术医学会和大学医院网站上的疤痕修复 PEM 进行了相关性评估。通过 Flesch Reading Ease、Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 和 Gunning-Fox Index 分数来评估 PEM 的可读性。患者教育材料评估工具 (PEMAT) 对可理解性和可操作性进行了评估。共有 26 份疤痕修复 PEM 符合纳入标准。最常被提及的疤痕管理干预措施是疤痕修复手术(73%)和激光疤痕修复(70%),而对疤痕按摩或防晒等非侵入性方法的强调则微乎其微。可读性分析得出的平均弗莱什阅读水平为 8.8。在线疤痕治疗 PEM 的总体 PEMAT 可读性处于中等水平,中位数为 76.0%(IQR 71.5 - 80.5%)。所有专科和机构类型的 PEM 均缺乏可操作性,可操作性中位数为 40.8%(IQR 38.1-60.0%)。在线疤痕修复 PEM 包括广泛的疤痕管理干预措施,但成本最低的防晒和疤痕按摩干预措施并不常见。疤痕管理的PEM可以通过简化语言、加入视觉辅助工具、加入核对表或患者可以采取的具体步骤来改进,以便对疤痕管理干预措施采取行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
21.40%
发文量
535
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Burn Care & Research provides the latest information on advances in burn prevention, research, education, delivery of acute care, and research to all members of the burn care team. As the official publication of the American Burn Association, this is the only U.S. journal devoted exclusively to the treatment and research of patients with burns. Original, peer-reviewed articles present the latest information on surgical procedures, acute care, reconstruction, burn prevention, and research and education. Other topics include physical therapy/occupational therapy, nutrition, current events in the evolving healthcare debate, and reports on the newest computer software for diagnostics and treatment. The Journal serves all burn care specialists, from physicians, nurses, and physical and occupational therapists to psychologists, counselors, and researchers.
期刊最新文献
Outcomes of Burn Injury in Organ Transplant Patients: A 12-Year Review. Prevalence of alcohol exposure in burns related injuries. Vasoactive Agents in Burn Patients - Perspectives on Angiotensin-II. Enoxaparin 40mg Twice Daily with Peak Anti-Xa Adjustments is Safe and Necessary to Achieve Therapeutic Chemoprophylaxis in Burn-Injured Patients. Hand Burn Injuries and Occupational Impairment: A Study on the Impact of Burn Injuries on Return-to-Work Outcomes from the Burn Model System research program.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1