• 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

常见泌尿系统癌症的在线健康信息质量和可读性:评估泌尿系统肿瘤学中健康素养的障碍。

Quality and Readability of Online Health Information on Common Urologic Cancers: Assessing Barriers to Health Literacy in Urologic Oncology.

机构信息

Division of Urology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.

Division of Urology, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Springfield, Illinois.

出版信息

Urol Pract. 2024 Jul;11(4):670-676. doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000574. Epub 2024 May 16.

DOI:10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000574
PMID:38899676
Abstract

INTRODUCTION

A growing number of Americans search online for health information related to urologic oncologic care each year. The American Medical Association recommends that medical information be written at a maximum sixth-grade level in order to be comprehensible by the majority of patients. As such, it is important to assess the quality and readability of online patient education material that patients are being exposed to.

METHODS

A Google search was performed using the terms "testicular cancer," "prostate cancer," "kidney cancer," and "bladder cancer," and the top 30 results for each were reviewed. Websites were categorized based on their source. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, the Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook indices. Quality was assessed using the DISCERN Quality Index (1-5 scale).

RESULTS

A total of 91 websites were included in our analysis. On average, online health information pertaining to urologic cancers is written at a 10th- to 11th-grade reading level, which is significantly higher than that of an average American adult and that recommended by the American Medical Association ( < .01). The overall quality of websites was 3.4 ± 0.7, representing moderate to high quality. There was no significant difference in readability based on cancer type or information source.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being of moderate to high quality, online patient education materials related to common urologic cancers are often written at a grade level that exceeds the reading level of an average American adult. This presents as a barrier to online health literacy and calls into question the utility of these resources.

摘要

简介

每年,越来越多的美国人在网上搜索与泌尿科肿瘤护理相关的健康信息。美国医学协会建议,医疗信息的写作水平最高应达到六年级,以便大多数患者能够理解。因此,评估患者正在接触的在线患者教育材料的质量和可读性非常重要。

方法

使用“睾丸癌”、“前列腺癌”、“肾癌”和“膀胱癌”等术语进行了谷歌搜索,并对每个术语的前 30 个结果进行了审查。根据来源对网站进行了分类。使用 Flesch-Kincaid 年级水平、Gunning 晦涩频率和简单晦涩度量指数评估可读性。使用 DISCERN 质量指数(1-5 分制)评估质量。

结果

共有 91 个网站纳入我们的分析。平均而言,与泌尿科癌症相关的在线健康信息的阅读水平为 10-11 年级,明显高于普通美国成年人的阅读水平和美国医学协会的建议(<0.01)。网站的整体质量为 3.4±0.7,代表中等至高质量。癌症类型或信息来源对可读性没有显著影响。

结论

尽管在线患者教育材料的质量为中等至高质量,但与常见泌尿科癌症相关的材料的阅读水平往往超过普通美国成年人的阅读水平。这给在线健康素养带来了障碍,并对这些资源的实用性提出了质疑。

相似文献

1
Quality and Readability of Online Health Information on Common Urologic Cancers: Assessing Barriers to Health Literacy in Urologic Oncology.常见泌尿系统癌症的在线健康信息质量和可读性:评估泌尿系统肿瘤学中健康素养的障碍。
Urol Pract. 2024 Jul;11(4):670-676. doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000574. Epub 2024 May 16.
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
The quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online educational materials for heart murmur.心脏杂音在线教育资料的质量、易懂性、可理解性和普及性。
Cardiol Young. 2020 Mar;30(3):328-336. doi: 10.1017/S104795111900307X. Epub 2019 Dec 26.
4
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.
5
Assessing parental comprehension of online resources on childhood pain.评估父母对儿童疼痛在线资源的理解程度。
Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Jun 21;103(25):e38569. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000038569.
6
Readability of Spanish-Language Online Patient Educational Materials for Peripheral Artery Disease Do Not Meet Recommended Standards and Represent a Literacy Barrier to Care.西班牙语在线外周动脉疾病患者教育材料的可读性不符合推荐标准,代表了患者获取医疗服务的读写能力障碍。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Apr;101:157-163. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.10.029. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
7
Health Literacy in Clubfoot: A Quantitative Assessment of the Readability, Understandability and Actionability of Online Patient Education Material.足踝畸形患者的健康素养:在线患者教育材料的可阅读性、可理解性和可操作性的定量评估。
Iowa Orthop J. 2021;41(1):61-67.
8
A Bilingual Readability Assessment of Online Breast Cancer Screening and Treatment Information.在线乳腺癌筛查和治疗信息的双语可读性评估。
J Surg Res. 2024 Oct;302:200-207. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.07.026. Epub 2024 Aug 3.
9
Online resources for strabismus: an evaluation of readability, complexity, and suitability.斜视的在线资源:可读性、复杂性和适用性评估
Strabismus. 2025 Mar;33(1):36-43. doi: 10.1080/09273972.2024.2408029. Epub 2024 Oct 1.
10
Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Material on Websites of Breast Imaging Centers.乳腺影像中心网站上在线患者教育资料的可读性与质量
J Am Coll Radiol. 2020 Oct;17(10):1245-1251. doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2020.04.016. Epub 2020 May 16.

引用本文的文献

1
An assessment of the quality and readability level of online content on urinary tract infection treatment in Spanish and English.对西班牙语和英语中关于尿路感染治疗的在线内容的质量和可读性水平的评估。
Transl Androl Urol. 2025 Jul 30;14(7):1959-1977. doi: 10.21037/tau-2025-221. Epub 2025 Jul 28.