Rooney Michael K, Golden Daniel W, Byun John, Lukas Rimas V, Sonabend Adam M, Lesniak Maciej S, Sachdev Sean
College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL.
Neurooncol Pract. 2020 Jan;7(1):59-67. doi: 10.1093/nop/npz031. Epub 2019 Jul 3.
Little is known about the readability and utility of patient education materials for stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to evaluate such materials from high-performing neurosurgery hospitals and professional societies through an analysis of readability and educational content.
In this cross-cross sectional study, 61 websites associated with the top 50 neurosurgery and neurology hospitals according to U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) and 11 predetermined professional medical societies were queried. Identified SRS education materials were analyzed by 6 readability indices. Educational content was assessed by 10 criteria based on surveys of patients' perspectives about SRS.
Fifty-four materials were identified from the target population (45 from USNWR hospital websites and 9 from professional society websites). Mean readability of materials ranged from 11.7 to 15.3 grade level, far more difficult than national recommendations of sixth and eighth grade. Materials were found to have deficiencies in educational content. Compared with high-performing hospitals, materials from websites of professional societies were longer ( = .002), and more likely to discuss risks and benefits specific to SRS ( = .008), alternative treatment options ( = .05) and expected outcomes or postprocedure descriptions ( = .004). Hospital materials were also more likely to favor brand-specific terminology (eg, GammaKnife) over generic terminology (eg, radiosurgery; = .019).
Publicly available online patient educational materials for SRS are written at reading levels above national recommendations. Furthermore, many lack information identified as important by patients. Reevaluation and improvement of online SRS educational materials on a national scale are warranted.
关于立体定向放射外科（SRS）患者教育材料的可读性和实用性，人们了解甚少。因此，本研究的目的是通过对可读性和教育内容的分析，评估来自高绩效神经外科医院和专业协会的此类材料。
在这项横断面研究中，查询了与《美国新闻与世界报道》（USNWR）评选出的前50家神经外科和神经内科医院相关的61个网站，以及11个预先确定的专业医学协会。通过6种可读性指标分析所确定的SRS教育材料。基于对患者关于SRS观点的调查，采用10项标准评估教育内容。
从目标人群中确定了54份材料（45份来自USNWR医院网站，9份来自专业协会网站）。材料的平均可读性在11.7至15.3年级水平之间，远比六年级和八年级的国家建议难度大。发现材料在教育内容方面存在不足。与高绩效医院相比，专业协会网站的材料更长（P = 0.002），更有可能讨论SRS特有的风险和益处（P = 0.008）、替代治疗方案（P = 0.05）以及预期结果或术后描述（P = 0.004）。医院的材料也更倾向于使用特定品牌的术语（如伽玛刀）而非通用术语（如放射外科；P = 0.019）。
公开可得的在线SRS患者教育材料的阅读水平高于国家建议。此外，许多材料缺乏患者认为重要的信息。有必要在全国范围内对在线SRS教育材料进行重新评估和改进。
