美国的学术和社区疝气中心网站在可读性方面不符合医疗保健扫盲标准。

IF 1.4 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Public Health Ethics Pub Date : 2022-06-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-27 DOI:10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z
S Docimo, K Seeras, R Acho, A Pryor, K Spaniolas
{"title":"美国的学术和社区疝气中心网站在可读性方面不符合医疗保健扫盲标准。","authors":"S Docimo, K Seeras, R Acho, A Pryor, K Spaniolas","doi":"10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words \"Hernia Center\" and \"University Hernia Center\" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.</p>","PeriodicalId":49136,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Ethics","volume":"11 1","pages":"779-786"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Academic and community hernia center websites in the United States fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.\",\"authors\":\"S Docimo, K Seeras, R Acho, A Pryor, K Spaniolas\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words \\\"Hernia Center\\\" and \\\"University Hernia Center\\\" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"779-786\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/3/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:健康素养被认为是预测健康状况的最佳指标。美国医学会(AMA)和美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)等组织建议,患者教育材料的可读性不应超过六年级水平。我们的研究重点是美国学术机构和社区组织中自我指定的疝气中心网站的可读性,以确定它们是否有能力以适当的阅读水平提供患者信息:方法:使用谷歌搜索引擎进行搜索。方法:利用谷歌搜索引擎进行搜索,使用关键词 "疝气中心 "和 "大学疝气中心 "来查找美国的手术项目链接。通过该程序进行了以下可读性测试:Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)、Gunning Fox Index (GFI)、Coleman-Liau Index (CLI)、Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) 和 Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score:在 96 个网站中,有 0 个网站(0%)在所有四项测试中都达到了建议的阅读水平。所有非学术中心(n = 50)的平均测试得分如下:FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68)、GFI (14.39 ± 3.07)、CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) 和 SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03)。所有学术课程(n = 46)的平均测试分数[SK1]如下:FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66)、GFI (15.01 ± 2.99)、CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) 和 SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02)。对每个疝气中心的 FKGL、GFI、CLI 和 SMOG 分数与 6.9 值(6.9 或更低被认为是可接受的阅读水平)进行了单样本 t 检验,结果显示所有四项检验的 p 值均为 0.001,具有统计学意义。用双样本 t 检验比较了学术组和社区组的可读性得分,所有四项检验的 p 值均大于 0.05,差异无统计学意义:结论:学术疝气中心和社区疝气中心均未达到六年级或六年级以下的适当阅读水平。为提高患者的理解能力和/或参与护理,今后的措施应包括适当的阅读水平材料、识别识字水平低的患者并在适当时进行干预或额外辅导,以及增加辅助学习材料(如视频)。
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
Academic and community hernia center websites in the United States fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.

Background: Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.

Methods: A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words "Hernia Center" and "University Hernia Center" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.

Results: Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.

Conclusion: Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.

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
Public Health Ethics
Public Health Ethics PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-MEDICAL ETHICS
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Ethics invites submission of papers on any topic that is relevant for ethical reflection about public health practice and theory. Our aim is to publish readable papers of high scientific quality which will stimulate debate and discussion about ethical issues relating to all aspects of public health. Our main criteria for grading manuscripts include originality and potential impact, quality of philosophical analysis, and relevance to debates in public health ethics and practice. Manuscripts are accepted for publication on the understanding that they have been submitted solely to Public Health Ethics and that they have not been previously published either in whole or in part. Authors may not submit papers that are under consideration for publication elsewhere, and, if an author decides to offer a submitted paper to another journal, the paper must be withdrawn from Public Health Ethics before the new submission is made. The editorial office will make every effort to deal with submissions to the journal as quickly as possible. All papers will be acknowledged on receipt by email and will receive preliminary editorial review within 2 weeks. Papers of high interest will be sent out for external review. Authors will normally be notified of acceptance, rejection, or need for revision within 8 weeks of submission. Contributors will be provided with electronic access to their proof via email; corrections should be returned within 48 hours.
期刊最新文献
From Self-Management to Shared-Management: A Relational Approach for Equitable Chronic Care The Application of Australian Rights Protections to the Use of Hepatitis C Notification Data to Engage People ‘Lost to Follow Up’ Time to Treat the Climate and Nature Crisis as One Indivisible Global Health Emergency. Psychedelics in PERIL: The Commercial Determinants of Health, Financial Entanglements and Population Health Ethics The Liberalism of Fear and Public Health Ethics
×
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