Assessing the Readability of English and Spanish Online Patient Educational Materials for Deep Venous Thrombosis

IF 1.8 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY Journal of Surgical Research Pub Date : 2024-09-19 DOI:10.1016/j.jss.2024.08.013
{"title":"Assessing the Readability of English and Spanish Online Patient Educational Materials for Deep Venous Thrombosis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Online patient educational materials (OPEMs) help patients engage in their health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends OPEM be written at or below the 6th grade reading level. This study assessed the readability of deep venous thrombosis OPEM in English and Spanish.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Google searches were conducted in English and Spanish using “deep venous thrombosis” and “<span><span>trombosis venosa profunda</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>,” respectively. The top 25 patient-facing results were recorded for each, and categorized into source type (hospital, professional society, other). Readability of English OPEM was measured using several scales including the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and INFLESZ Scale. Readability was compared to the AMA recommendation, between languages, and across source types.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Only one (4%) Spanish OPEM was written at an easy level, compared to 7 (28%) English OPEM (<em>P</em> = 0.04). More English (28%) OPEM were easy to read compared to Spanish (4%), with a significant difference in reading difficulty breakdown between languages (<em>P</em> = 0.04). The average readability scores for English and Spanish OPEM across all scales were significantly greater than the recommended level (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.01). Only four total articles (8%) met the AMA recommendation, with no significant difference between English and Spanish OPEM (<em>P</em> = 0.61).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Nearly all English and Spanish deep venous thrombosis OPEM analyzed were above the recommended reading level. English resources had overall easier readability compared to Spanish, which may represent a barrier to care. To limit health disparities, information should be presented at accessible reading levels.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480424005237","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Online patient educational materials (OPEMs) help patients engage in their health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends OPEM be written at or below the 6th grade reading level. This study assessed the readability of deep venous thrombosis OPEM in English and Spanish.

Methods

Google searches were conducted in English and Spanish using “deep venous thrombosis” and “trombosis venosa profunda,” respectively. The top 25 patient-facing results were recorded for each, and categorized into source type (hospital, professional society, other). Readability of English OPEM was measured using several scales including the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and INFLESZ Scale. Readability was compared to the AMA recommendation, between languages, and across source types.

Results

Only one (4%) Spanish OPEM was written at an easy level, compared to 7 (28%) English OPEM (P = 0.04). More English (28%) OPEM were easy to read compared to Spanish (4%), with a significant difference in reading difficulty breakdown between languages (P = 0.04). The average readability scores for English and Spanish OPEM across all scales were significantly greater than the recommended level (P < 0.01). Only four total articles (8%) met the AMA recommendation, with no significant difference between English and Spanish OPEM (P = 0.61).

Conclusions

Nearly all English and Spanish deep venous thrombosis OPEM analyzed were above the recommended reading level. English resources had overall easier readability compared to Spanish, which may represent a barrier to care. To limit health disparities, information should be presented at accessible reading levels.

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
评估英语和西班牙语深静脉血栓在线患者教育材料的可读性
导言在线患者教育材料(OPEM)有助于患者参与医疗保健。美国医学会(AMA)建议,OPEM 的编写水平应达到或低于六年级的阅读水平。本研究评估了深静脉血栓 OPEM 在英语和西班牙语中的可读性。方法分别使用 "deep venous thrombosis"(深静脉血栓)和 "trombosis venosa profunda"(深静脉血栓)在英语和西班牙语中进行谷歌搜索。分别记录面向患者的前 25 条搜索结果,并按来源类型(医院、专业协会、其他)进行分类。英文 OPEM 的可读性采用多个量表进行测量,其中包括 Flesch 阅读易读性公式和 Flesch-Kincaid 分级。西班牙语 OPEM 的可读性采用 Fernández-Huerta 指数和 INFLESZ 量表进行测量。将可读性与美国医学会的建议进行比较,并在不同语言和不同来源类型之间进行比较。结果只有一篇(4%)西班牙文 OPEM 的书写水平为简单,而英文 OPEM 为 7 篇(28%)(P = 0.04)。与西班牙语(4%)相比,更多英语(28%)OPEM 易读,不同语言之间的阅读难度细分差异显著(P = 0.04)。英文和西班牙文 OPEM 在所有量表中的平均可读性得分均明显高于建议水平(P < 0.01)。结论几乎所有英语和西班牙语深静脉血栓 OPEM 的分析结果都高于推荐阅读水平。与西班牙语相比,英语资源总体上更容易阅读,这可能是护理的一个障碍。为了减少健康差异,信息应该以易于阅读的水平提供。
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
3.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
627
审稿时长
138 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories. The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.
期刊最新文献
Rodent Model of Cardiopulmonary Bypass Demonstrates Systemic Inflammation and NeuroMarker Changes Sequential Fasciotomies for Managing Abdominal Compartment Syndrome: Porcine Experimental Study Vascular Graft Infections Treated With Bioabsorbable Antibiotic Beads Effectiveness of Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery Program in Bariatric Surgery Outcomes of Gastroschisis and Omphalocele Treated at Children’s Surgery Verified Centers in Texas
×
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