对患者不那么友好:风湿病学和内科的患者教育材料在美国达不到国家推荐的可读性基准。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY Arthritis Care & Research Pub Date : 2024-11-28 DOI:10.1002/acr.25473
Yazmin Rustomji, Ugochukwu C Nweke, Sobia Hassan, Usama Ahmad, Meenakshi Jolly
{"title":"对患者不那么友好:风湿病学和内科的患者教育材料在美国达不到国家推荐的可读性基准。","authors":"Yazmin Rustomji, Ugochukwu C Nweke, Sobia Hassan, Usama Ahmad, Meenakshi Jolly","doi":"10.1002/acr.25473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient education materials (PEMs) can help promote health literacy (HL) among patients. However, their use depends on how easily patients can read and comprehend the information. Several national organizations recommend that text be written at a sixth- to eighth-grade level. Herein, we assess and compare the readability and comprehension (RC) of PEMs for rheumatologic and general medical conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used six standardized RC metrics including the well-known Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level to evaluate the RC of PEMs (n = 175) on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (n = 86) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (n = 89) websites. Two-sided t-tests compared RC between the two resources. P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On all six standardized metrics used, the mean reading level of all PEMs ranged from high school to college level. For example, the mean ± SD of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook was 10.89 ± 1.88, corresponding to a 10th-grade education, and the mean ± SD of Gunning Fog Score was 14.39 ± 2.49, corresponding to a 14th-grade education required to understand the text. JAMA PEMs had significantly more difficult RC levels compared to ACR PEMs based on five of the six indices used (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEMs available on the ACR and JAMA websites do not align with national organizations' recommendations for RC levels. To enhance patient understanding and promote HL, existing PEMs must be modified in line with these recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not So Patient Friendly: Patient Education Materials in Rheumatology and Internal Medicine Fall Short of Nationally Recommended Readability Benchmarks in the United States.\",\"authors\":\"Yazmin Rustomji, Ugochukwu C Nweke, Sobia Hassan, Usama Ahmad, Meenakshi Jolly\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/acr.25473\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Patient education materials (PEMs) can help promote health literacy (HL) among patients. However, their use depends on how easily patients can read and comprehend the information. Several national organizations recommend that text be written at a sixth- to eighth-grade level. Herein, we assess and compare the readability and comprehension (RC) of PEMs for rheumatologic and general medical conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used six standardized RC metrics including the well-known Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level to evaluate the RC of PEMs (n = 175) on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (n = 86) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (n = 89) websites. Two-sided t-tests compared RC between the two resources. P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On all six standardized metrics used, the mean reading level of all PEMs ranged from high school to college level. For example, the mean ± SD of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook was 10.89 ± 1.88, corresponding to a 10th-grade education, and the mean ± SD of Gunning Fog Score was 14.39 ± 2.49, corresponding to a 14th-grade education required to understand the text. JAMA PEMs had significantly more difficult RC levels compared to ACR PEMs based on five of the six indices used (P < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PEMs available on the ACR and JAMA websites do not align with national organizations' recommendations for RC levels. To enhance patient understanding and promote HL, existing PEMs must be modified in line with these recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthritis Care & Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25473\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25473","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:患者教育材料有助于提高患者的健康素养。然而,它们的使用取决于患者阅读和理解信息的难易程度。一些国家组织建议在六年级到八年级的水平上编写文本。在此,我们评估和比较风湿病和一般医疗条件的PEMs的可读性和理解性(RC)。方法:我们使用6个标准化的RC指标,包括著名的Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease (FKRE)和Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)来评估美国风湿病学会(ACR) (n=86)和美国医学协会杂志(JAMA) (n=89)网站上PEMs (n=175)的RC。双侧t检验比较了两种资源之间的RC。p值≤0.05被认为是显著的。结果:在使用的所有六个标准化指标中,所有PEMs的平均阅读水平从高中到大学水平不等。例如,Gobbledygook简单测量(SMOG)的均值(SD)为10.89(1.88),对应于10年级的教育程度;gun Fog Score (GFS)的均值(SD)为14.39(2.49),对应于14年级的教育程度。基于所使用的六个指标中的五个,JAMA PEMs的RC水平明显高于ACR PEMs(结论:ACR和JAMA网站上提供的PEMs与国家组织推荐的RC水平不一致)。为了提高患者的理解和促进HL,现有的PEMs必须根据这些建议进行修改。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Not So Patient Friendly: Patient Education Materials in Rheumatology and Internal Medicine Fall Short of Nationally Recommended Readability Benchmarks in the United States.

Objective: Patient education materials (PEMs) can help promote health literacy (HL) among patients. However, their use depends on how easily patients can read and comprehend the information. Several national organizations recommend that text be written at a sixth- to eighth-grade level. Herein, we assess and compare the readability and comprehension (RC) of PEMs for rheumatologic and general medical conditions.

Methods: We used six standardized RC metrics including the well-known Flesch Kincaid Readability Ease and Flesch Kincaid Grade Level to evaluate the RC of PEMs (n = 175) on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) (n = 86) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) (n = 89) websites. Two-sided t-tests compared RC between the two resources. P ≤ 0.05 was considered significant.

Results: On all six standardized metrics used, the mean reading level of all PEMs ranged from high school to college level. For example, the mean ± SD of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook was 10.89 ± 1.88, corresponding to a 10th-grade education, and the mean ± SD of Gunning Fog Score was 14.39 ± 2.49, corresponding to a 14th-grade education required to understand the text. JAMA PEMs had significantly more difficult RC levels compared to ACR PEMs based on five of the six indices used (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: PEMs available on the ACR and JAMA websites do not align with national organizations' recommendations for RC levels. To enhance patient understanding and promote HL, existing PEMs must be modified in line with these recommendations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
368
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthritis Care & Research, an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (a division of the College), is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original research, review articles, and editorials that promote excellence in the clinical practice of rheumatology. Relevant to the care of individuals with rheumatic diseases, major topics are evidence-based practice studies, clinical problems, practice guidelines, educational, social, and public health issues, health economics, health care policy, and future trends in rheumatology practice.
期刊最新文献
Correction to Benefits of Early Versus Late Initiation of Intravenous Immunoglobulin in the Treatment of Patients With Anti-3-Hydroxy-3-Methylglutaryl-Coenzyme A Reductase Immune-Mediated Necrotizing Myopathy. Geographic Clustering of Systemic Sclerosis in Areas of Environmental Pollution. Predictors of Mortality in Antiphospholipid Antibody Positive Patients: Prospective Results from Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) Clinical Database and Repository ("Registry"). Pregnancy Outcomes of Targeted Synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs Among Patients with Autoimmune Diseases: A Scoping Review. Issue Information
×
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