Frida Smith1, Eva Carlsson2, Dimitrios Kokkinakis3, Markus Forsberg3, Karl Kodeda4, Richard Sawatzky5, Febe Friberg6, Joakim Öhlén7. 1. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden; Institute of Health and Care Sciences,Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Sweden. Electronic address: frida.smith@vgregion.se. 2. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden; Institute of Health and Care Sciences,Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Sweden. 3. Språkbanken/Department of Swedish language, University of Gothenburg, Sweden. 4. Department of Colorectal Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital/Östra, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Trinity Western University, School of Nursing, Providence Health Care, Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcomes Sciences, Vancouver, Canada. 6. Institute of Health and Care Sciences,Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Sweden; Department of Health Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Norway. 7. Institute of Health and Care Sciences,Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sweden; University of Gothenburg Centre for Person-centred Care (GPCC), Sweden; Palliative Research Centre, Ersta Sköndal University College and Ersta Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize education materials provided to patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery to gain a better understanding of how to design readable, suitable, comprehensible materials. METHOD: Mixed method design. Deductive quantitative analysis using a validated suitability and comprehensibility assessment instrument (SAM+CAM) was applied to patient education materials from 27 Swedish hospitals, supplemented by language technology analysis and deductive and inductive analysis of data from focus groups involving 15 former patients. RESULTS: Of 125 patient education materials used during the colorectal cancer surgery process, 13.6% were rated 'not suitable', 76.8% 'adequate' and 9.6% 'superior'. Professionally developed stoma care brochures were rated 'superior' and 44% of discharge brochures were 'not suitable'. Language technology analysis showed that up to 29% of materials were difficult to comprehend. Focus group analysis revealed additional areas that needed to be included in patient education materials: general and personal care, personal implications, internet, significant others, accessibility to healthcare, usability, trustworthiness and patient support groups. CONCLUSION: Most of the patient education materials were rated 'adequate' but did not meet the information needs of patients entirely. Discharge brochures particularly require improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using patients' knowledge and integrating manual and automated methods could result in more appropriate patient education materials.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize education materials provided to patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery to gain a better understanding of how to design readable, suitable, comprehensible materials. METHOD: Mixed method design. Deductive quantitative analysis using a validated suitability and comprehensibility assessment instrument (SAM+CAM) was applied to patient education materials from 27 Swedish hospitals, supplemented by language technology analysis and deductive and inductive analysis of data from focus groups involving 15 former patients. RESULTS: Of 125 patient education materials used during the colorectal cancer surgery process, 13.6% were rated 'not suitable', 76.8% 'adequate' and 9.6% 'superior'. Professionally developed stoma care brochures were rated 'superior' and 44% of discharge brochures were 'not suitable'. Language technology analysis showed that up to 29% of materials were difficult to comprehend. Focus group analysis revealed additional areas that needed to be included in patient education materials: general and personal care, personal implications, internet, significant others, accessibility to healthcare, usability, trustworthiness and patient support groups. CONCLUSION: Most of the patient education materials were rated 'adequate' but did not meet the information needs of patients entirely. Discharge brochures particularly require improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Using patients' knowledge and integrating manual and automated methods could result in more appropriate patient education materials.
Authors: Emma J Steel; Alison H Trainer; Alexander G Heriot; Craig Lynch; Susan Parry; Aung K Win; Louise A Keogh Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2016-07-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Margot Jager; Janine de Zeeuw; Janne Tullius; Roberta Papa; Cinzia Giammarchi; Amanda Whittal; Andrea F de Winter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-11-05 Impact factor: 3.390