• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在线乳腺癌风险评估工具的可读性。

The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.

作者信息

Cortez Sarah, Milbrandt Melissa, Kaphingst Kimberly, James Aimee, Colditz Graham

出版信息

Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Nov;154(1):191-9. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3601-2.

DOI:10.1007/s10549-015-3601-2
PMID:26475705
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4621697/
Abstract

Numerous breast cancer risk assessment tools that allow users to input personal risk information and obtain a personalized breast cancer risk estimate are available on the Internet. The goal of these tools is to increase screening awareness and identify modifiable health behaviors; however, the utility of this risk information is limited by the readability of the material. We undertook this study to assess the overall readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and accompanying information, as well as to identify areas of suggested improvement. We searched for breast cancer risk assessment tools, using five search terms, on three search engines. All searches were performed on June 12, 2014. Sites that met inclusion criteria were then assessed for readability using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and the SMOG readability formula (July 1, 2014–January 31, 2015). The primary outcomes are the frequency distribution of overall SAM readability category (superior, adequate, or not suitable) and mean SMOG reading grade level. The search returned 42 sites were eligible for assessment, only 9 (21.4 %) of which achieved an overall SAM superior rating, and 27 (64.3 %) were deemed adequate. The average SMOG reading grade level was grade 12.1 (SD 1.6, range 9–15). The readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and the sites that host them is an important barrier to risk communication. This study demonstrates that most breast cancer risk assessment tools are not accessible to individuals with limited health literacy skills. More importantly, this study identifies potential areas of improvement and has the potential to heighten a physician’s awareness of the Internet resources a patient might navigate in their quest for breast cancer risk information.

摘要

互联网上有许多乳腺癌风险评估工具,用户可以输入个人风险信息并获得个性化的乳腺癌风险估计。这些工具的目标是提高筛查意识并识别可改变的健康行为;然而,这些风险信息的效用受到材料可读性的限制。我们开展这项研究以评估乳腺癌风险评估工具及相关信息的整体可读性,并确定建议改进的领域。我们在三个搜索引擎上使用五个搜索词搜索乳腺癌风险评估工具。所有搜索均在2014年6月12日进行。然后使用材料适用性评估(SAM)和烟雾可读性公式(2014年7月1日至2015年1月31日)对符合纳入标准的网站进行可读性评估。主要结果是SAM整体可读性类别(优秀、 adequate或不适合)的频率分布以及烟雾可读性平均年级水平。搜索返回42个符合评估条件的网站,其中只有9个(21.4%)获得了SAM整体优秀评级,27个(64.3%)被认为是adequate。烟雾可读性平均年级水平为12.1年级(标准差1.6,范围9 - 15)。乳腺癌风险评估工具及其所在网站的可读性是风险沟通的一个重要障碍。这项研究表明,健康素养技能有限的个人无法使用大多数乳腺癌风险评估工具。更重要的是,这项研究确定了潜在的改进领域,并有可能提高医生对患者在寻求乳腺癌风险信息时可能浏览的互联网资源的认识。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6c59/4621697/90982d107cf8/10549_2015_3601_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6c59/4621697/90982d107cf8/10549_2015_3601_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6c59/4621697/90982d107cf8/10549_2015_3601_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.在线乳腺癌风险评估工具的可读性。
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Nov;154(1):191-9. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3601-2.
2
Assessment of online patient materials for breast reconstruction.乳房重建在线患者资料评估
J Surg Res. 2015 Nov;199(1):280-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2015.04.072. Epub 2015 May 15.
3
Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information.基于互联网的消费者健康信息的可读性评估。
Respir Care. 2008 Oct;53(10):1310-5.
4
Readability Assessment of Online Patient Abdominoplasty Resources.在线腹部整形手术患者资源的可读性评估。
Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2015 Feb;39(1):147-53. doi: 10.1007/s00266-014-0425-0. Epub 2014 Dec 5.
5
Readability, complexity, and suitability analysis of online lymphedema resources.在线淋巴水肿资源的可读性、复杂性和适用性分析。
J Surg Res. 2017 Jun 1;213:251-260. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.02.056. Epub 2017 Mar 6.
6
A readability assessment of online stroke information.在线中风信息的可读性评估。
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014 Jul;23(6):1362-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.11.017. Epub 2014 Jan 3.
7
An evaluation of the suitability, readability, and quality of online resources for the self-management of depression.评估在线资源用于抑郁症自我管理的适宜性、可读性和质量。
Patient Educ Couns. 2019 May;102(5):952-960. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.021. Epub 2019 Jan 9.
8
Readability of online patient resources for the operative treatment of breast cancer.在线乳腺癌手术治疗患者资源的易读性。
Surgery. 2014 Aug;156(2):311-8. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.03.004. Epub 2014 Mar 14.
9
Readability, complexity, and suitability of online resources for mastectomy and lumpectomy.乳房切除术和乳房肿瘤切除术在线资源的可读性、复杂性和适用性。
J Surg Res. 2017 May 15;212:214-221. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.01.012. Epub 2017 Jan 28.
10
Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening.基于互联网的乳腺癌筛查乳腺X线摄影相关患者教育材料的可读性评估。
Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar;22(3):290-5. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.10.009. Epub 2014 Dec 5.

引用本文的文献

1
Readability analysis of breast cancer resources shared on X-implications for patient education and the potential of AI.X 上分享的乳腺癌资源的可读性分析——对患者教育的启示及人工智能的潜力
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2025 Aug 6. doi: 10.1007/s10549-025-07799-z.
2
Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis.医疗保健专业人员和公众对基于个性化风险的癌症筛查的可接受性和认知:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。
Lancet Public Health. 2025 Feb;10(2):e85-e96. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(24)00278-0.
3
Comparative readability of information on different treatment options for breast cancer, based on WeChat public accounts.

本文引用的文献

1
Cancer statistics, 2013.癌症统计数据,2013 年。
CA Cancer J Clin. 2013 Jan;63(1):11-30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21166. Epub 2013 Jan 17.
2
Moderate alcohol consumption during adult life, drinking patterns, and breast cancer risk.成年期适度饮酒、饮酒模式与乳腺癌风险。
JAMA. 2011 Nov 2;306(17):1884-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.1590.
3
Assessing women at high risk of breast cancer: a review of risk assessment models.评估高乳腺癌风险女性:风险评估模型回顾。
基于微信公众号的乳腺癌不同治疗方案信息的可读性比较
PLoS One. 2025 Jan 24;20(1):e0317032. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317032. eCollection 2025.
4
Implementing Multifactorial Risk Assessment with Polygenic Risk Scores for Personalized Breast Cancer Screening in the Population Setting: Challenges and Opportunities.在人群中实施基于多基因风险评分的多因素风险评估以进行个性化乳腺癌筛查:挑战与机遇
Cancers (Basel). 2024 May 31;16(11):2116. doi: 10.3390/cancers16112116.
5
Novel Interactive Tool for Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk Assessment (Bright Pink Assess Your Risk): Development and Usability Study.用于乳腺癌和卵巢癌风险评估的新型交互式工具(粉莓评估您的风险):开发和可用性研究。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Feb 24;24(2):e29124. doi: 10.2196/29124.
6
Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?英文在线患者教育材料与乳腺癌风险评估相关的内容是否易于理解、阅读和付诸行动?
Breast. 2022 Feb;61:29-34. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.11.012. Epub 2021 Nov 25.
7
Adherence of Internet-Based Cancer Risk Assessment Tools to Best Practices in Risk Communication: Content Analysis.基于互联网的癌症风险评估工具对风险沟通最佳实践的遵从性:内容分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Jan 25;23(1):e23318.
8
Commentary: 20 years online with "Your Disease Risk".评论:“你的疾病风险”在线 20 年。
Cancer Causes Control. 2021 Jan;32(1):5-11. doi: 10.1007/s10552-020-01356-3. Epub 2020 Oct 17.
9
Translating Cancer Risk Prediction Models into Personalized Cancer Risk Assessment Tools: Stumbling Blocks and Strategies for Success.将癌症风险预测模型转化为个性化癌症风险评估工具:成功的绊脚石和策略。
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020 Dec;29(12):2389-2394. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0861. Epub 2020 Oct 12.
10
Participatory Design of a Personalized Genetic Risk Tool to Promote Behavioral Health.用于促进行为健康的个性化遗传风险工具的参与式设计。
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2020 Jul;13(7):583-592. doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-20-0029. Epub 2020 Mar 24.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 May 19;102(10):680-91. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq088. Epub 2010 Apr 28.
4
What is my cancer risk? How internet-based cancer risk assessment tools communicate individualized risk estimates to the public: content analysis.我的癌症风险是多少?基于互联网的癌症风险评估工具如何向公众传达个性化风险评估结果:内容分析
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Jul 31;11(3):e33. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1222.
5
Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication.健康素养与癌症风险认知:对基因组风险沟通的影响
Med Decis Making. 2009 Mar-Apr;29(2):157-66. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08327111. Epub 2008 Dec 2.
6
A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information.对用于印刷品和网络癌症信息的可读性和理解性工具的系统评价。
Health Educ Behav. 2006 Jun;33(3):352-73. doi: 10.1177/1090198105277329.
7
Internet usage by low-literacy adults seeking health information: an observational analysis.低文化水平成年人获取健康信息的互联网使用情况:一项观察性分析。
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 3;6(3):e25. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.3.e25.
8
Health literacy, cervical cancer risk factors, and distress in low-income African-American women seeking colposcopy.寻求阴道镜检查的低收入非裔美国女性的健康素养、宫颈癌风险因素及困扰
Ethn Dis. 2002 Fall;12(4):541-6.
9
Health literacy and cancer communication.健康素养与癌症沟通
CA Cancer J Clin. 2002 May-Jun;52(3):134-49. doi: 10.3322/canjclin.52.3.134.
10
Age at menarche, age at menopause, height and obesity as risk factors for breast cancer: associations and interactions in an international case-control study.初潮年龄、绝经年龄、身高和肥胖作为乳腺癌的危险因素:一项国际病例对照研究中的关联与相互作用
Int J Cancer. 1990 Nov 15;46(5):796-800. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910460508.