scholarly journals Patient information materials in general practices and promotion of health literacy: an observational study of their effectiveness

2015 ◽  
Vol 65 (632) ◽  
pp. e192-e197 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Protheroe ◽  
Emee Vida Estacio ◽  
Sirandou Saidy-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Information Materials

scholarly journals An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Dalziel ◽  
Michael J. Leveridge ◽  
Stephen S. Steele ◽  
Jason P. Izard
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Important Determinant ◽  
Low Literacy ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Information Materials ◽  
Improve Health

Introduction: Health literacy has been shown to be an important determinant of outcomes in numerous disease states. In an effort to improve health literacy, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) publishes freely accessible patient information materials (PIMs) on common urological conditions. We sought to evaluate the readability of the CUA’s PIMs.Methods: All PIMs were accessed through the CUA website. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the number of educational graphics were determined for each PIM. Low FRES scores and high FKGL scores are associated with more difficult-to-read text. Average readability values were calculated for each PIM category based on the CUA-defined subject categorizes. The five pamphlets with the highest FKGL scores were revised using word substitutions for complex multisyllabic words and reanalyzed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify readability differences between PIM categories and paired t-tests were used to test differences between FKGL scores beforeand after revisions.Results: Across all PIMs, FRES values were low (mean 47.5, standard deviation [SD] 7.47). This corresponded to an average FKGL of 10.5 (range 8.1‒12.0). Among PIM categories, the infertility andsexual function PIMs exhibited the highest average FKGL (mean 11.6), however, differences in scores between categories were not statistically significant (p=0.38). The average number of words persentence was also highest in the infertility and sexual function PIMs and significantly higher than other categories (mean 17.2; p=0.01). On average, there were 1.4 graphics displayed per PIM (range 0‒4), which did not vary significantly by disease state (p=0.928). Simple words substitutions improved the readability of the five most difficult-to-read PIMs by an average of 3.1 grade points (p<0.01).Conclusions: Current patient information materials published by the CUA compare favourably to those produced by other organizations, but may be difficult to read for low-literacy patients. Readability levels must be balanced against the required informational needs of patients, which may be intrinsically complex.

scholarly journals Written patient information materials used in general practices fail to meet acceptable quality standards

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Posch ◽  
Karl Horvath ◽  
Kerstin Wratschko ◽  
Jasper Plath ◽  
Richard Brodnig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Quality Standards ◽  
Acceptable Quality ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Information Materials

scholarly journals Influence of serum iron test results on the diagnosis of iron deficiency in children: a retrospective observational study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e046865
Author(s):  
Gorkem Sezgin ◽  
Ling Li ◽  
Johanna Westbrook ◽  
Elisabeth Wearne ◽  
Denise Azar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Iron Deficiency ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Serum Ferritin ◽  
Serum Iron ◽  
Estimating Equation ◽  
Normal Serum ◽  
Retrospective Observational Study ◽  
Test Results ◽  
General Practices

Background and objectiveSerum iron results are not indicative of iron deficiency yet may be incorrectly used to diagnose iron deficiency instead of serum ferritin results. Our objective was to determine the association between serum iron test results and iron-deficiency diagnosis in children by general practitioners.Design, setting, patients and main outcome measuresA retrospective observational study of 14 187 children aged 1–18 years with serum ferritin and serum iron test results from 137 general practices in Victoria, Australia, between 2008 and 2018. Generalised estimating equation models calculating ORs were used to determine the association between serum iron test results (main exposure measure) and iron-deficiency diagnosis (outcome measure) in the following two population groups: (1) iron-deplete population, defined as having a serum ferritin <12 µg/L if aged <5 years and <15 µg/L if aged ≥5 years and (2) iron-replete population, defined as having a serum ferritin >30 µg/L.Results3484 tests were iron deplete and 15 528 were iron replete. Iron-deplete children were less likely to be diagnosed with iron deficiency if they had normal serum iron levels (adjusted OR (AOR): 0.73; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.96). Iron-replete children had greater odds of an iron-deficiency diagnosis if they had low serum iron results (AOR: 2.59; 95% CI 1.72 to 3.89). Other contributors to an iron-deficiency diagnosis were female sex and having anaemia.ConclusionSerum ferritin alone remains the best means of diagnosing iron deficiency. Reliance on serum iron test results by general practitioners is leading to significant overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of iron deficiency in children.

scholarly journals Health literacy level in a various nephrology population from Québec: predialysis clinic, in-centre hemodialysis and home dialysis; a transversal monocentric observational study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annabel Boyer ◽  
Yannick Begin ◽  
Julie Dupont ◽  
Mathieu Rousseau-Gagnon ◽  
Nicolas Fernandez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Good Health ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Home Dialysis ◽  
Limited Health Literacy ◽  
Limited Health

Abstract Background Health literacy refers to the ability of individuals to gain access to, use, and understand health information and services in order to maintain a good health. It is especially important in nephrology due to the complexity of chronic kidney disease (CKD). The present study sought to define health literacy levels in patients followed in predialysis clinic, in-center dialysis (ICHD), peritoneal dialysis (PD) and home hemodialysis (HHD). Methods This transversal monocentric observational study analysed 363 patients between October 2016 and April 2017. The Brief Health Literacy Screen (BHLS) and the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) were used to measure health literacy. Multivariate linear regressions were used to compare the mean scores on the BHLS and HLQ, across the four groups. Results Patients on PD had a significantly higher BHLS’score than patients on ICHD (p = 0.04). HLQ’s scores differed across the groups: patients on HHD (p = 0.01) and PD (p = 0.002) were more likely to feel understood by their healthcare providers. Compared to ICHD, patients on HHD were more likely to have sufficient information to manage their health (p = 0.02), and patients in the predialysis clinic were more likely to report high abilities for health information appraisal (p < 0.001). Conclusion In a monocentric study, there is a significant proportion of CKD patients, especially in predialysis clinic and in-centre hemodialysis, with limited health literacy. Patients on home dialysis (HHD and PD) had a higher level of health literacy compared to the other groups.

scholarly journals A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nandita S. Mani ◽  
Terri Ottosen ◽  
Megan Fratta ◽  
Fei Yu
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Public Health Departments ◽  
Material Type ◽  
Information Materials

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the public’s need for quality health information that is understandable. This study aimed to identify (1) the extent to which COVID-19 messaging by state public health departments is understandable, actionable, and clear; (2) whether materials produced by public health departments are easily readable; (3) relationships between material type and understandability, actionability, clarity, and reading grade level; and (4) potential strategies to improve public health messaging around COVID-19. Methods: Based on US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics from June 30, 2020, we identified the ten states with the most COVID-19 cases and selected forty-two materials (i.e., webpages, infographics, and videos) related to COVID-19 prevention according to predefined eligibility criteria. We applied three validated health literacy tools (i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, CDC Clear Communication Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) to assess material understandability, actionability, clarity, and readability. We also analyzed correlations between scores on the three health literacy tools and material types.Results: Overall, COVID-19 materials had high understandability and actionability but could be improved in terms of clarity and readability. Material type was significantly correlated with understandability, actionability, and clarity. Infographics and videos received higher scores on all tools.Conclusions: Based on our findings, we recommend public health entities apply a combination of these tools when developing health information materials to improve their understandability, actionability, and clarity. We also recommend using infographics and videos when possible, taking a human-centered approach to information design, and providing multiple modes and platforms for information delivery.

scholarly journals Associations between general practice characteristics and chest x-ray rate: an observational study

2021 ◽  
pp. BJGP.2021.0232
Author(s):  
Stephen H Bradley ◽  
Matthew Barclay ◽  
Benjamin Cornwell ◽  
Gary A Abel ◽  
Matthew Callister ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Population Characteristics ◽  
Substantial Variation ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Patient Satisfaction Scores ◽  
Improved Outcomes ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
General Practices

Background: Chest x-ray (CXR) is the first-line test for lung cancer in many settings. Previous research has suggested that higher utilisation of CXR is associated with improved outcomes. Aim: To explore the associations between characteristics of general practices and frequency of investigation with CXR. Design & Setting: Retrospective observational study of English general practices. Method: We constructed a database of English general practices containing number of CXRs requested and data on practices for 2018, including patient & staff demographics, smoking prevalence, deprivation and patient satisfaction indicators. Mixed effects Poisson modelling was used to account for variation due to chance and to estimate the amount of remaining variation that could be attributed to practice and population characteristics. Results: There was substantial variation in GP CXR rates (median 34 per 1000 patients, IQR 26-43). Only 18% of between-practice variance in CXR rate was accounted for by recorded characteristics. Higher practice scores for continuity and communication skills and higher proportions of smokers, Asian and mixed ethnic groups, and patients aged >65 were associated with increased CXR rates. Higher patient satisfaction scores for access and with greater proportions of male and patients of black ethnicity were associated with lower CXR rates. Conclusion: Substantial variation was found in CXR rates beyond that expected by chance, which could not be accounted for by practices’ recorded characteristics. Since other research has indicated that increasing CXR rates can lead to earlier detection, supporting practices which currently investigate infrequently could be an effective strategy to improve lung cancer outcomes.

scholarly journals Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e037994
Author(s):  
Lydia O'Sullivan ◽  
Prasanth Sukumar ◽  
Rachel Crowley ◽  
Eilish McAuliffe ◽  
Peter Doran
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Difficulty Level ◽  
Consent Forms ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
The Uk

ObjectivesThe first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.DesignRetrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.SettingPILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.InterventionNot applicable.Main outcome measuresPILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.ResultsA total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as ‘Plain English’, 40.3%: ‘Fairly Difficult’, 51.3%: ‘Difficult’ and 1.3%: ‘Very Difficult’. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.ConclusionsWhen assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document