Hunt William T N, McGrath Emily J
Department of Dermatology, The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom.
Dermatol Surg. 2016 Jun;42(6):757-63. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000720.
Postoperative patient information leaflets (PILs) provide important guidance to patients after skin surgery. Readability is a method of evaluating information for text comprehension. The recommended level for PIL readability is US grade ≤6.
To evaluate the readability of public English dermatological postoperative PILs.
All dermatology departments in England were requested to provide their postoperative PILs. Patient information leaflets were evaluated using Readability Studio (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH). Two preselected parameters were also noted: whether the PIL was doctor or nurse-written, and whether the PIL was Information Standard hallmarked.
Eighty-five of one hundred thirty (65.4%) of PILs were evaluated. Only 29.4% of the PILs were grade level ≤6 with Flesch-Kincaid. The mean readability levels were 7.8 for Flesch-Kincaid, 67 for Flesch reading ease, 10.5 for Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), 9.4 for Gunning-Fog, 8 for Fry, and 9.8 for FORCAST. No instruments demonstrated a significant difference between doctor (6) and nurse-written (7) PILs. Two instruments found that the 3 Information Standard hallmarked PILs had a higher (harder) readability than ordinary PILs (n = 82) (Gunning-Fog, p = .029*; SMOG p = .049*).
Most English postoperative dermatological PILs' readability levels exceed recommendations (US grade ≤6). Departmental PILs should be reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensible to their patients.
术后患者信息手册(PILs)为皮肤外科手术后的患者提供重要指导。可读性是评估文本信息以便理解的一种方法。PIL可读性的推荐水平是美国年级水平≤6。
评估公共英语皮肤病学术后PILs的可读性。
要求英格兰所有皮肤科提供其术后PILs。使用Readability Studio(Oleander软件,俄亥俄州万代利亚)评估患者信息手册。还记录了两个预先选定的参数:PIL是由医生还是护士撰写,以及PIL是否有信息标准标志。
130份PILs中有85份(65.4%)被评估。根据弗莱施-金凯德法,只有29.4%的PILs年级水平≤6。弗莱施-金凯德的平均可读性水平为7.8,弗莱施阅读简易度为67,简易语言衡量法(SMOG)为10.5,冈宁-福格为9.4,弗莱为8,FORCAST为9.8。没有工具显示医生撰写的PILs(6)和护士撰写的PILs(7)之间有显著差异。两种工具发现,3份有信息标准标志的PILs比普通PILs(n = 82)具有更高(更难)的可读性(冈宁-福格,p = 0.029*;SMOG,p = 0.049*)。
大多数英国术后皮肤病学PILs的可读性水平超过了推荐值(美国年级水平≤6)。应审查科室的PILs,以确保患者能够理解。