• 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

健康素养:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会在线患者教育资料的可读性

Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material.

作者信息

Kapoor Karan, George Praveen, Evans Matthew C, Miller Weldon J, Liu Stanley S

机构信息

Department of Medicine, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, USA.

出版信息

Cardiology. 2017;138(1):36-40. doi: 10.1159/000475881. Epub 2017 Jun 2.

DOI:10.1159/000475881
PMID:28571004
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the online patient education material offered by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) is written at a higher level than the 6th-7th grade level recommended by the National Institute of Health (NIH).

METHODS

Online patient education material from each website was subjected to reading grade level (RGL) analysis using the Readability Studio Professional Edition. One-sample t testing was used to compare the mean RGLs obtained from 8 formulas to the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean.

RESULTS

In total, 372 articles from the ACC website and 82 from the AHA were studied. Mean (±SD) RGLs for the 454 articles were 9.6 ± 2.1, 11.2 ± 2.1, 11.9 ± 1.6, 10.8 ± 1.6, 9.7 ± 2.1, 10.8 ± 0.8, 10.5 ± 2.6, and 11.7 ± 3.5 according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG Index), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), New Dale-Chall reading level formula (NDC), FORCAST, Raygor Readability Estimate (RRE), and Fry Graph (Fry), respectively. All analyzed articles had significantly higher RGLs than both the NIH-recommended grade level of 6.5 and the national mean grade level of 8 (p < 0.00625).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education material provided on the ACC and AHA websites is written above the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean reading level. Additional studies are required to demonstrate whether lowering the RGL of this material improves outcomes among patients with cardiovascular disease.

摘要

目的

确定美国心脏病学会(ACC)和美国心脏协会(AHA)提供的在线患者教育材料的编写水平是否高于美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)推荐的6至7年级水平。

方法

使用Readability Studio专业版对每个网站的在线患者教育材料进行阅读年级水平(RGL)分析。采用单样本t检验,将从8种公式得出的平均RGL与NIH推荐的6.5年级水平和8年级全国平均水平进行比较。

结果

总共研究了ACC网站的372篇文章和AHA网站的82篇文章。根据弗莱什-金凯德年级水平(FKGL)、难词简易衡量法(SMOG指数)、科尔曼-廖指数(CLI)、冈宁-福格指数(GFI)、新戴尔-查尔阅读水平公式(NDC)、FORCAST、雷戈尔可读性估计(RRE)和弗莱图表(Fry),这454篇文章的平均(±标准差)RGL分别为9.6±2.1、11.2±2.1、11.9±1.6、10.8±1.6、9.7±2.1、10.8±0.8、10.5±2.6和11.7±3.5。所有分析的文章的RGL均显著高于NIH推荐的6.5年级水平和8年级全国平均水平(p<0.00625)。

结论

ACC和AHA网站提供的患者教育材料的编写水平高于NIH推荐的6.5年级水平和8年级全国平均阅读水平。需要进一步研究以证明降低该材料的RGL是否能改善心血管疾病患者的治疗效果。

相似文献

1
Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material.健康素养:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会在线患者教育资料的可读性
Cardiology. 2017;138(1):36-40. doi: 10.1159/000475881. Epub 2017 Jun 2.
2
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.主要眼科协会在线患者教育材料评估。
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
3
Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials.美国鼻科学会患者教育材料的可读性评估。
Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013 Apr;3(4):325-33. doi: 10.1002/alr.21097. Epub 2012 Oct 8.
4
Health literacy and online educational resources: an opportunity to educate patients.健康素养和在线教育资源:教育患者的机会。
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Jan;204(1):111-6. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13086.
5
Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials.在线泌尿科患者教育材料的可读性评估。
J Urol. 2013 Mar;189(3):1048-52. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255. Epub 2012 Sep 24.
6
Assessment of the Readability of Online Patient Education Material from Major Geriatric Associations.评估主要老年病学协会在线患者教育材料的可读性。
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021 Apr;69(4):1051-1056. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16960. Epub 2020 Nov 25.
7
Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites.评估主要耳鼻喉科协会网站上患者教育材料的可读性。
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012 Nov;147(5):848-54. doi: 10.1177/0194599812456152. Epub 2012 Aug 3.
8
Health Literacy in Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Quantitative Assessment of the Understandability and Readability of Online Patient Education Material.肩关镜手术中的健康素养:对在线患者教育材料的可理解性和可读性的定量评估。
Iowa Orthop J. 2024;44(1):151-158.
9
A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org.放射学信息网(RadiologyInfo.Org)在线患者教育资源的可读性评价综述
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar;202(3):566-75. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11223.
10
Readability of Patient Educational Materials in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Has a Decade Made a Difference?髋关节和膝关节置换术患者教育材料的可读性:十年间有变化吗?
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Nov;35(11):3076-3083. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.076. Epub 2020 Jun 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Artificial Intelligence in Peripheral Artery Disease Education: A Battle Between ChatGPT and Google Gemini.外周动脉疾病教育中的人工智能:ChatGPT与谷歌Gemini的较量
Cureus. 2025 Jun 1;17(6):e85174. doi: 10.7759/cureus.85174. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Appropriateness of Web-Based Resources for Home Blood Pressure Measurement and Their Alignment With Guideline Recommendations, Readability, and End User Involvement: Environmental Scan of Web-Based Resources.基于网络的家庭血压测量资源的适用性及其与指南建议、可读性和最终用户参与度的一致性:基于网络资源的环境扫描
JMIR Infodemiology. 2025 Apr 3;5:e55248. doi: 10.2196/55248.
3
Assessing readability and comprehension of web-based patient education materials by American Heart Association (AHA) and CardioSmart online platform by American College of Cardiology (ACC): How useful are these websites for patient understanding?
评估美国心脏协会(AHA)和美国心脏病学会(ACC)的CardioSmart在线平台上基于网络的患者教育材料的可读性和理解度:这些网站对患者理解有多大帮助?
Am Heart J Plus. 2023 Jul 12;32:100308. doi: 10.1016/j.ahjo.2023.100308. eCollection 2023 Aug.
4
Heart Disease Knowledge and Awareness in African American and Hispanic Women.非裔美国女性和西班牙裔女性的心脏病知识和意识。
South Med J. 2023 Oct;116(10):783-789. doi: 10.14423/SMJ.0000000000001610.
5
Assessing the Readability and Quality of Cardiac Rehabilitation Program Websites in Michigan.评估密歇根州心脏康复项目网站的可读性和质量。
J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2023 Nov 1;43(6):E23-E25. doi: 10.1097/HCR.0000000000000817. Epub 2023 Aug 29.
6
Spanish-language bariatric surgery patient education materials fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.西班牙语肥胖症手术患者教育材料未能达到卫生保健读写能力标准。
Surg Endosc. 2023 Aug;37(8):6417-6428. doi: 10.1007/s00464-023-10088-9. Epub 2023 May 2.
7
Quality and content evaluation of websites with information about immune checkpoint inhibitors: An environmental scan.免疫检查点抑制剂信息网站的质量和内容评估:环境扫描。
PLoS One. 2022 Oct 10;17(10):e0275676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275676. eCollection 2022.
8
Assessment of freely available online videos of cardiac electrophysiological procedures from a shared decision-making perspective.从共同决策的角度评估心脏电生理手术的免费在线视频
Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2022 Jul 15;3(4):189-196. doi: 10.1016/j.cvdhj.2022.06.003. eCollection 2022 Aug.
9
Online Patient Education Materials Related to Lipoprotein(a): Readability Assessment.脂蛋白(a)相关在线患者教育材料:可读性评估。
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e31284. doi: 10.2196/31284.
10
Increasing utility of Google Trends in monitoring cardiovascular disease.谷歌趋势在监测心血管疾病方面的效用不断增加。
Digit Health. 2021 Sep 28;7:20552076211033420. doi: 10.1177/20552076211033420. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.