Suppr超能文献

患者健康素养水平与电子健康记录中患者教育材料可读性之间的差异

Discrepancy Between Patient Health Literacy Levels and Readability of Patient Education Materials from an Electronic Health Record.

作者信息

Imoisili Omoye E, Levinsohn Erik, Pan Cassie, Howell Benjamin A, Streiter Shoshana, Rosenbaum Julie R

出版信息

Health Lit Res Pract. 2017 Nov 9;1(4):e203-e207. doi: 10.3928/24748307-20170918-01. eCollection 2017 Oct.

Abstract

Limited health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes. It is standard practice in many primary care clinics to provide patients with written patient education materials (PEM), which often come directly from an electronic health record (EHR). We compared the health literacy of patients in a primary care residency clinic with EHR PEM readability by grade level. We assessed health literacy using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form (REALM-SF), and determined grade level readability for the PEM distributed for the five most common clinical diagnoses using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid metrics. Among 175 participants, health literacy was ≥9th grade for 76 patients (43.4%), 7th to 8th grade for 66 patients (37.7%), and ≤6th grade for 30 patients (17.1%). Average standard PEM readability by SMOG was grade 9.2 and easy-to-read PEM readability was grade 6.8. These findings suggest a discrepancy between the health literacy of most patients who were surveyed and standard PEM readability. Despite national guidelines encouraging clinicians to provide PEM at an appropriate reading level, our results indicate that PEM from EHR may not be readable for many patients. .

摘要

健康素养有限与较差的健康结果相关。在许多初级保健诊所,为患者提供书面患者教育材料(PEM)是标准做法,这些材料通常直接来自电子健康记录(EHR)。我们通过年级水平比较了初级保健住院诊所患者的健康素养与EHR PEM的可读性。我们使用医学成人识字快速评估简表(REALM-SF)评估健康素养,并使用难词简易测量法(SMOG)和弗莱什-金凯德指标确定针对五种最常见临床诊断分发的PEM的年级水平可读性。在175名参与者中,76名患者(43.4%)的健康素养≥9年级,66名患者(37.7%)为7至8年级,30名患者(17.1%)≤6年级。SMOG评估的标准PEM平均可读性为9.2年级,易读PEM的可读性为6.8年级。这些发现表明,大多数接受调查的患者的健康素养与标准PEM可读性之间存在差异。尽管国家指南鼓励临床医生以适当的阅读水平提供PEM,但我们的结果表明,来自EHR的PEM对许多患者来说可能不可读。

相似文献

1
Discrepancy Between Patient Health Literacy Levels and Readability of Patient Education Materials from an Electronic Health Record.
Health Lit Res Pract. 2017 Nov 9;1(4):e203-e207. doi: 10.3928/24748307-20170918-01. eCollection 2017 Oct.
3
Readability and patient education materials used for low-income populations.
Clin Nurse Spec. 2009 Jan-Feb;23(1):33-40; quiz 41-2. doi: 10.1097/01.NUR.0000343079.50214.31.
4
Readability of patient education materials available at the point of care.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep;27(9):1165-70. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2046-0. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
5
The Readability of AAOS Patient Education Materials: Evaluating the Progress Since 2008.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Sep 7;98(17):e70. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00658.
6
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104.
7
A readability assessment of online stroke information.
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014 Jul;23(6):1362-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2013.11.017. Epub 2014 Jan 3.
8
Readability Assessment of Internet-Based Patient Education Materials Related to Parathyroid Surgery.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2015 Jul;124(7):523-7. doi: 10.1177/0003489414567938. Epub 2015 Jan 15.
9
Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material.
Cardiology. 2017;138(1):36-40. doi: 10.1159/000475881. Epub 2017 Jun 2.
10
Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information.
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015 Aug;39(4):309-14. doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12341. Epub 2015 Feb 25.

引用本文的文献

1
A cross-language analysis of urolithiasis patient online materials: Assessment across 24 European languages.
Cent European J Urol. 2025;78(2):221-227. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2025.0045. Epub 2025 May 26.
2
Source Characteristics Influence AI-Enabled Orthopaedic Text Simplification: Recommendations for the Future.
JB JS Open Access. 2025 Jan 8;10(1). doi: 10.2106/JBJS.OA.24.00007. eCollection 2025 Jan-Mar.
5
Health Literacy in Oculofacial Plastic Surgery: A Literature Review.
Cureus. 2023 Jul 7;15(7):e41518. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41518. eCollection 2023 Jul.
6
Assessment of freely available online videos of cardiac electrophysiological procedures from a shared decision-making perspective.
Cardiovasc Digit Health J. 2022 Jul 15;3(4):189-196. doi: 10.1016/j.cvdhj.2022.06.003. eCollection 2022 Aug.
7
Health literacy characteristics of over-the-counter rapid antigen COVID-19 test materials.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2022 Dec;18(12):4124-4128. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.08.003. Epub 2022 Aug 15.
8
Online Patient Education Materials Related to Lipoprotein(a): Readability Assessment.
J Med Internet Res. 2022 Jan 11;24(1):e31284. doi: 10.2196/31284.
9
Readability and Comprehension of Printed Patient Education Materials.
Front Public Health. 2021 Nov 30;9:725840. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.725840. eCollection 2021.

本文引用的文献

1
The Arc of Health Literacy.
JAMA. 2015;314(12):1225-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.9978.
3
The evolution of health literacy assessment tools: a systematic review.
BMC Public Health. 2014 Nov 24;14:1207. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-1207.
4
Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013 Sep-Oct;9(5):503-16. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009. Epub 2012 Jul 25.
5
Readability of patient education materials available at the point of care.
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Sep;27(9):1165-70. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2046-0. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
6
Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005.
7
A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information.
J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010 Dec;40(4):292-6. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401.
9
The costs of limited health literacy: a systematic review.
Int J Public Health. 2009;54(5):313-24. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-0058-2. Epub 2009 Jul 31.
10
Readability and patient education materials used for low-income populations.
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