Evaluation of Reading Level of Result Letters Sent to Patients from an Academic Primary Care Practice.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23333928231172142
Brian Lee, Emily Dixon, Danielle P Wales
{"title":"Evaluation of Reading Level of Result Letters Sent to Patients from an Academic Primary Care Practice.","authors":"Brian Lee,&nbsp;Emily Dixon,&nbsp;Danielle P Wales","doi":"10.1177/23333928231172142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In primary care, low health literacy, particularly reading ability, is associated with worse health outcomes. Most physicians do not receive feedback on the reading levels of written communication that they may provide to patients, including result letters.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Our study compares the readability of result letters, written by resident versus attending physicians, to patients with positive or negative screens for reading ability, as determined by the single-item literacy screener (SILS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Result letters to 50 patients at high risk and 50 patients at low risk of low reading ability were randomly selected starting from January 1st, 2020 at Albany Medical Center. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) were used to compare the readability of resident versus attending result letters.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For all SILS levels, attending physicians wrote result letters at a lower grade level than resident physicians based on the FKGL, GFI, and SMOG indices. The FKGL, GFI, and SMOG readability scores of result letters written to patients with SILS 3-5 were also lower when written by attending physicians compared to resident physicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Result letters written by attending physicians may be easier to read than result letters written by resident physicians, especially for patients with low reading ability. Future electronic health record (EHR) software should give physicians and providers feedback on the reading level of their written communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":12951,"journal":{"name":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","volume":"10 ","pages":"23333928231172142"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c7/eb/10.1177_23333928231172142.PMC10134153.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23333928231172142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In primary care, low health literacy, particularly reading ability, is associated with worse health outcomes. Most physicians do not receive feedback on the reading levels of written communication that they may provide to patients, including result letters.

Objective: Our study compares the readability of result letters, written by resident versus attending physicians, to patients with positive or negative screens for reading ability, as determined by the single-item literacy screener (SILS).

Methods: Result letters to 50 patients at high risk and 50 patients at low risk of low reading ability were randomly selected starting from January 1st, 2020 at Albany Medical Center. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) were used to compare the readability of resident versus attending result letters.

Results: For all SILS levels, attending physicians wrote result letters at a lower grade level than resident physicians based on the FKGL, GFI, and SMOG indices. The FKGL, GFI, and SMOG readability scores of result letters written to patients with SILS 3-5 were also lower when written by attending physicians compared to resident physicians.

Conclusions: Result letters written by attending physicians may be easier to read than result letters written by resident physicians, especially for patients with low reading ability. Future electronic health record (EHR) software should give physicians and providers feedback on the reading level of their written communication.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
学术初级保健实践发给患者的结果信的阅读水平评价。
背景:在初级保健中,低健康素养,特别是阅读能力,与较差的健康结果相关。大多数医生没有收到他们可能提供给病人的书面交流的阅读水平的反馈,包括结果信。目的:我们的研究比较了住院医生和主治医生对阅读能力筛查呈阳性或阴性的患者所写的结果信的可读性,这是由单项识字筛查(SILS)确定的。方法:自2020年1月1日起,随机抽取奥尔巴尼医疗中心阅读能力低下的高风险患者50例和低风险患者50例的结果信。采用Flesch- kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)、Gunning Fog Index (GFI)、Coleman-Liau Index (CLI)、Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)和Flesch Reading Ease (FRE)来比较住院医师和住院医师成绩信的可读性。结果:在所有SILS级别中,基于FKGL、GFI和SMOG指数,主治医生所写的结果信级别低于住院医生。与住院医师相比,主治医师给SILS 3-5患者写的结果信的FKGL、GFI和SMOG可读性得分也较低。结论:主治医师撰写的结果信可能比住院医师撰写的结果信更容易阅读,特别是对于阅读能力较低的患者。未来的电子健康记录(EHR)软件应该给医生和提供者反馈他们书面沟通的阅读水平。
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
1.60
自引率
6.20%
发文量
32
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Developing a Physical Activity Program for Mothers and Their Children at Risk for Diabetes. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Healthcare Utilization among Medically Underserved Patients with Ambulatory Care Sensitive Conditions. Need for an Artificial Intelligence-based Diabetes Care Management System in India and the United States. Patient Opportunities to Self-Schedule in a Large Multisite, Multispecialty Medical Practice: Program Description and Uptake of 7 Unique Processes for Patients to Successfully Self-Schedule (and Reschedule) Their Medical Appointments. Analysis of Determinants of Stunting and Identifications of Stunting Risk Profiles Among Under 2-Year-Old Children in Ethiopia. A Latent Class Analysis.
×
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