George Abdelmalek MD , Harjot Uppal MBA , Daniel Garcia BS , Joseph Farshchian MD , Arash Emami MD , Andrew McGinniss MD
{"title":"Leveraging ChatGPT to Produce Patient Education Materials for Common Hand Conditions","authors":"George Abdelmalek MD , Harjot Uppal MBA , Daniel Garcia BS , Joseph Farshchian MD , Arash Emami MD , Andrew McGinniss MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jhsg.2024.10.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Many adults in the United States possess basic or below basic health literacy skills, making it essential for patient education materials (PEMs) to be presented at or below a sixth-grade reading level. We evaluate the readability of PEMs generated by ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 for common hand conditions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 and 4.0 to generate PEMs for 50 common hand pathologies. Two consistent questions were asked to minimize variability: 1. “Please explain [Condition] to a patient at a sixth-grade reading level, including details on anatomy, symptoms, doctors' examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical).” 2. “Create a detailed patient information sheet for the general patient population at a sixth-grade reading level explaining [Condition], including points such as anatomy, symptoms, physical examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical).” Before asking the second question, a priming phase was conducted where ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 were presented with a text sample written at a sixth-grade reading level and informed that this was the desired output level. Multiple readability tests were used to evaluate the output, with a consensus reading level created from the results of all eight readability scores. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>ChatGPT 4.0 successfully produced 28% of its responses at the appropriate reading level following the priming phase, compared to none by ChatGPT 3.5. ChatGPT 4.0 showed superior performance across all readability metrics.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>ChatGPT 4.0 is a more effective tool than ChatGPT 3.5 for generating PEMs at a sixth-grade reading level for common hand conditions.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical relevance</h3><div>The results suggest that Artificial Intelligence could significantly enhance patient education and health literacy with further refinement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36920,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","volume":"7 1","pages":"Pages 37-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hand Surgery Global Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589514124001956","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Many adults in the United States possess basic or below basic health literacy skills, making it essential for patient education materials (PEMs) to be presented at or below a sixth-grade reading level. We evaluate the readability of PEMs generated by ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 for common hand conditions.
Methods
We used Chat Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 and 4.0 to generate PEMs for 50 common hand pathologies. Two consistent questions were asked to minimize variability: 1. “Please explain [Condition] to a patient at a sixth-grade reading level, including details on anatomy, symptoms, doctors' examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical).” 2. “Create a detailed patient information sheet for the general patient population at a sixth-grade reading level explaining [Condition], including points such as anatomy, symptoms, physical examination, and treatment (both surgical and nonsurgical).” Before asking the second question, a priming phase was conducted where ChatGPT 3.5 and 4.0 were presented with a text sample written at a sixth-grade reading level and informed that this was the desired output level. Multiple readability tests were used to evaluate the output, with a consensus reading level created from the results of all eight readability scores. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.4.
Results
ChatGPT 4.0 successfully produced 28% of its responses at the appropriate reading level following the priming phase, compared to none by ChatGPT 3.5. ChatGPT 4.0 showed superior performance across all readability metrics.
Conclusions
ChatGPT 4.0 is a more effective tool than ChatGPT 3.5 for generating PEMs at a sixth-grade reading level for common hand conditions.
Clinical relevance
The results suggest that Artificial Intelligence could significantly enhance patient education and health literacy with further refinement.