Suppr超能文献

互联网上与“分娩镇痛”相关的患者教育材料的可读性。

Readability of internet-sourced patient education material related to "labour analgesia".

作者信息

Boztas Nilay, Omur Dilek, Ozbılgın Sule, Altuntas Gözde, Piskin Ersan, Ozkardesler Sevda, Hanci Volkan

机构信息

Dokuz Eylul University, School of Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Izmir, Turkey.

出版信息

Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Nov;96(45):e8526. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008526.

Abstract

We evaluated the readability of Internet-sourced patient education materials (PEMs) related to "labour analgesia." In addition to assessing the readability of websites, we aimed to compare commercial, personal, and academic websites.We used the most popular search engine (http://www.google.com) in our study. The first 100 websites in English that resulted from a search for the key words "labour analgesia" were scanned. Websites that were not in English, graphs, pictures, videos, tables, figures and list formats in the text, all punctuation, the number of words in the text is less than 100 words, feedback forms not related to education, (Uniform Resource Locator) URL websites, author information, references, legal disclaimers, and addresses and telephone numbers were excluded.The texts included in the study were assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (FOG) readability formulae. The number of Latin words within the text was determined.Analysis of 300-word sections of the texts revealed that the mean FRES was 47.54 ± 12.54 (quite difficult), mean FKGL and SMOG were 11.92 ± 2.59 and 10.57 ± 1.88 years of education, respectively, and mean Gunning FOG was 14.71 ± 2.76 (very difficult). Within 300-word sections, the mean number of Latin words was identified as 16.56 ± 6.37.In our study, the readability level of Internet-sourced PEM related to "labour analgesia" was identified to be quite high indicating poor readability.

相似文献

4
Readability assessment of online tracheostomy care resources.在线气管造口护理资源的可读性评估。
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015 Feb;152(2):272-8. doi: 10.1177/0194599814560338. Epub 2014 Dec 1.

引用本文的文献

2
Assessing the readability and quality of online written information on epistaxis.评估在线鼻出血书面信息的可读性和质量。
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2025 Jul;107(6):429-433. doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2024.0053. Epub 2024 Oct 22.

本文引用的文献

4
A qualitative analysis of parturients' perspectives on neuraxial labor analgesia.产妇对椎管内分娩镇痛的看法的定性分析。
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2013 Apr;22(2):119-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2012.11.003. Epub 2013 Feb 23.
9
Readability and patient education materials used for low-income populations.面向低收入人群的可读性和患者教育材料。
Clin Nurse Spec. 2009 Jan-Feb;23(1):33-40; quiz 41-2. doi: 10.1097/01.NUR.0000343079.50214.31.

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