Suppr超能文献

国立癌症研究所指定癌症中心网站上在线患者教育资源的可读性

Readability of Online Patient Educational Resources Found on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Web Sites.

作者信息

Rosenberg Stephen A, Francis David, Hullett Craig R, Morris Zachary S, Fisher Michael M, Brower Jeffrey V, Bradley Kristin A, Anderson Bethany M, Bassetti Michael F, Kimple Randall J

机构信息

The Department of Human Oncology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin Carbone Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

出版信息

J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Jun;14(6):735-40. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0075.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The NIH and Department of Health & Human Services recommend online patient information (OPI) be written at a sixth grade level. We used a panel of readability analyses to assess OPI from NCI-Designated Cancer Center (NCIDCC) Web sites.

METHODS

Cancer.gov was used to identify 68 NCIDCC Web sites from which we collected both general OPI and OPI specific to breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancers. This text was analyzed by 10 commonly used readability tests: the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Flesch Reading Ease scale, Flesch-Kinaid Grade Level, FORCAST scale, Fry Readability Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook test, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook index, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate Graph, and Coleman-Liau Index. We tested the hypothesis that the readability of NCIDCC OPI was written at the sixth grade level. Secondary analyses were performed to compare readability of OPI between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers, by region, and to OPI produced by the American Cancer Society (ACS).

RESULTS

A mean of 30,507 words from 40 comprehensive and 18 noncomprehensive NCIDCCs was analyzed (7 nonclinical and 3 without appropriate OPI were excluded). Using a composite grade level score, the mean readability score of 12.46 (ie, college level: 95% CI, 12.13-12.79) was significantly greater than the target grade level of 6 (middle-school: P<.001). No difference between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers was identified. Regional differences were identified in 4 of the 10 readability metrics (P<.05). ACS OPI provides easier language, at the seventh to ninth grade level, across all tests (P<.01).

CONCLUSIONS

OPI from NCIDCC Web sites is more complex than recommended for the average patient.

摘要

背景

美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)和卫生与公众服务部建议在线患者信息(OPI)应写成六年级的阅读水平。我们使用一组可读性分析方法来评估来自美国国立癌症研究所指定癌症中心(NCIDCC)网站的OPI。

方法

通过Cancer.gov识别出68个NCIDCC网站,我们从这些网站收集了一般OPI以及针对乳腺癌、前列腺癌、肺癌和结肠癌的特定OPI。使用10种常用的可读性测试方法对这些文本进行分析:新戴尔 - 查尔可读性公式、弗莱什易读性量表、弗莱什 - 金凯德年级水平、FORCAST量表、弗莱可读性图表、简单费解度测试、费解度戈宁频率指数、新雾度计数、雷戈尔可读性估计图表和科尔曼 - 廖指数。我们检验了NCIDCC OPI的可读性为六年级水平这一假设。进行了二次分析,以比较综合中心和非综合中心之间、按地区划分的OPI可读性,以及与美国癌症协会(ACS)生成的OPI的可读性。

结果

分析了来自40个综合和18个非综合NCIDCC的平均30,507个单词(排除了7个非临床和3个没有适当OPI的网站)。使用综合年级水平得分,平均可读性得分为12.46(即大学水平:95%置信区间,12.13 - 12.79),显著高于目标年级水平6(中学水平:P <.001)。未发现综合中心和非综合中心之间存在差异。在10种可读性指标中的4种中发现了地区差异(P <.05)。在所有测试中,ACS的OPI语言更简单,处于七年级至九年级水平(P <.01)。

结论

NCIDCC网站的OPI比为普通患者推荐的更为复杂。

相似文献

1
Readability of Online Patient Educational Resources Found on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Web Sites.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Jun;14(6):735-40. doi: 10.6004/jnccn.2016.0075.
2
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
4
Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments.
Am J Otolaryngol. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):31-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.001. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
5
Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials.
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):1048-52. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255. Epub 2012 Sep 24.
6
Readability assessment of online patient resources for breast augmentation surgery.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Jun;135(6):1573-1579. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000001230.
8
Readability Assessment of Patient Information about Lymphedema and Its Treatment.
Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016 Feb;137(2):287e-295e. doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000475747.95096.ab.
10
Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials.
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013 Apr;3(4):325-33. doi: 10.1002/alr.21097. Epub 2012 Oct 8.

引用本文的文献

6
Alignment of Patient Health Numeracy with Asthma Care Instructions in the Patient Portal.
Health Lit Res Pract. 2017 Mar 23;1(1):e1-e10. doi: 10.3928/24748307-20170307-01. eCollection 2017 Jan.
7
Health Literacy Considerations for a New Cancer Prevention Initiative.
Gerontologist. 2019 May 17;59(Suppl 1):S7-S16. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnz032.
8
Readability of Prostate Cancer Information Online: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Am J Mens Health. 2018 Sep;12(5):1665-1669. doi: 10.1177/1557988318780864. Epub 2018 Jun 9.
9
Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2017 Jan-Feb;7(1):57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.07.008. Epub 2016 Aug 1.

本文引用的文献

1
Health Literacy Research: Isn't There Something Better We Could Be Doing?
Health Commun. 2015;30(12):1173-5. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2015.1037421.
2
Evidence-based health information from the users' perspective--a qualitative analysis.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Oct 10;13:405. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-405.
3
Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to uterine artery embolization.
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013 Apr;24(4):469-74. doi: 10.1016/j.jvir.2013.01.006. Epub 2013 Feb 26.
4
Health literacy influences self-management behavior in asthma.
Chest. 2012 Dec;142(6):1687. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-0578.
5
Readability of websites containing information about prostate cancer treatment options.
J Urol. 2012 Dec;188(6):2171-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.105. Epub 2012 Oct 18.
6
Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials.
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):1048-52. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255. Epub 2012 Sep 24.
7
Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments.
Am J Otolaryngol. 2013 Jan-Feb;34(1):31-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.001. Epub 2012 Sep 5.
8
Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Nov;147(5):848-54. doi: 10.1177/0194599812456152. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
9
Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors.
J Neurooncol. 2012 Sep;109(3):573-80. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0930-4. Epub 2012 Jul 19.
10
Health literacy and asthma.
J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012 Apr;129(4):935-42. doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2012.01.040. Epub 2012 Feb 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验