Literature DB >> 24973195

Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information.

Sarah J Shoemaker1, Michael S Wolf2, Cindy Brach3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a reliable and valid instrument to assess the understandability and actionability of print and audiovisual materials.
METHODS: We compiled items from existing instruments/guides that the expert panel assessed for face/content validity. We completed four rounds of reliability testing, and produced evidence of construct validity with consumers and readability assessments.
RESULTS: The experts deemed the PEMAT items face/content valid. Four rounds of reliability testing and refinement were conducted using raters untrained on the PEMAT. Agreement improved across rounds. The final PEMAT showed moderate agreement per Kappa (Average K=0.57) and strong agreement per Gwet's AC1 (Average=0.74). Internal consistency was strong (α=0.71; Average Item-Total Correlation=0.62). For construct validation with consumers (n=47), we found significant differences between actionable and poorly-actionable materials in comprehension scores (76% vs. 63%, p<0.05) and ratings (8.9 vs. 7.7, p<0.05). For understandability, there was a significant difference for only one of two topics on consumer numeric scores. For actionability, there were significant positive correlations between PEMAT scores and consumer-testing results, but no relationship for understandability. There were, however, strong, negative correlations between grade-level and both consumer-testing results and PEMAT scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The PEMAT demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability, and evidence of construct validity. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The PEMAT can help professionals judge the quality of materials (available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/pemat).
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Assessment; Audiovisual materials; Clear communication; Educational materials; Health literacy; Instrument development; Measurement; Patient education; Plain language; Readability

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24973195      PMCID: PMC5085258          DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Patient Educ Couns        ISSN: 0738-3991


  16 in total

Review 1.  Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Darren A Dewalt; Nancy D Berkman; Stacey Sheridan; Kathleen N Lohr; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information.

Authors:  Daniela B Friedman; Laurie Hoffman-Goetz
Journal:  Health Educ Behav       Date:  2006-06

3.  Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials.

Authors:  Deborah Helitzer; Christine Hollis; Jane Cotner; Nancy Oestreicher
Journal:  Cancer Control       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.302

Review 4.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Health Literacy INDEX: development, reliability, and validity of a new tool for evaluating the health literacy demands of health information materials.

Authors:  Kimberly A Kaphingst; Matthew W Kreuter; Chris Casey; Luisa Leme; Tess Thompson; Meng-Ru Cheng; Heather Jacobsen; Ryan Sterling; Joy Oguntimein; Carl Filler; Arthur Culbert; Megan Rooney; Christy Lapka
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2012

Review 6.  Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and Web-based materials.

Authors:  Ramona K C Finnie; Tisha M Felder; Suzanne Kneuper Linder; Patricia Dolan Mullen
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients' literacy skills.

Authors:  R M Parker; D W Baker; M V Williams; J R Nurss
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate material used in patient education.

Authors:  Laura H Clayton
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 3.187

Review 9.  Impact of health literacy on health outcomes in ambulatory care patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Darcie L Keller; Julie Wright; Heather A Pace
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  2008-07-22       Impact factor: 3.154

10.  Variability in pharmacy interpretations of physician prescriptions.

Authors:  Michael S Wolf; Paul Shekelle; Niteesh K Choudhry; Jessica Agnew-Blais; Ruth M Parker; William H Shrank
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 2.983

View more
  130 in total

1.  Challenges optimizing the after visit summary.

Authors:  Alex Federman; Erin Sarzynski; Cindy Brach; Paul Francaviglia; Jessica Jacques; Lina Jandorf; Angela Sanchez Munoz; Michael Wolf; Joseph Kannry
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 4.046

2.  Readability assessment of patient-provider electronic messages in a primary care setting.

Authors:  Jacob B Mirsky; Lina Tieu; Courtney Lyles; Urmimala Sarkar
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Parental Actionability of Educational Materials Regarding Laryngotracheal Reconstruction.

Authors:  Kevin Wong; Katherine R Keefe; Amir Gilad; Christopher J Chong-Sun Li; Jessica R Levi
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 6.223

4.  Going beyond the concept of readability to improve comprehension of patient education materials.

Authors:  Marco Masoni; Maria Renza Guelfi
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2017-03-04       Impact factor: 3.397

5.  Consulting "Dr. YouTube": an objective evaluation of hypospadias videos on a popular video-sharing website.

Authors:  Amr Salama; Janet Panoch; Elhaam Bandali; Aaron Carroll; Sarah Wiehe; Stephen Downs; Mark P Cain; Richard Frankel; Katherine H Chan
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2019-12-04       Impact factor: 1.830

6.  Using the Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit to Improve the Quality of Patient Materials.

Authors:  Angela G Brega; Megan A G Freedman; William G LeBlanc; Juliana Barnard; Natabhona M Mabachi; Maribel Cifuentes; Karen Albright; Barry D Weiss; Cindy Brach; David R West
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015

7.  Consulting Dr. Google: Quality of Online Resources About Tympanostomy Tube Placement.

Authors:  Vandra C Harris; Anne R Links; Paul Hong; Jonathan Walsh; Desi P Schoo; David E Tunkel; Charles M Stewart; Emily F Boss
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2017-08-26       Impact factor: 3.325

8.  Development and testing of a frailty-focused communication (FCOM) aid for older adults.

Authors:  Cathy A Maxwell; Russell Rothman; Ruth Wolever; Sandra Simmons; Mary S Dietrich; Richard Miller; Mayur Patel; Mohana B Karlekar; Sheila Ridner
Journal:  Geriatr Nurs       Date:  2020-07-22       Impact factor: 2.361

9.  Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

Authors:  Michael Anthony Fajardo; Kristie Rebecca Weir; Carissa Bonner; Danijela Gnjidic; Jesse Jansen
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Understood? Evaluating the readability and understandability of intranasal corticosteroid delivery instructions.

Authors:  Saangyoung E Lee; William C Brown; Mark W Gelpi; Adam J Kimple; Brent A Senior; Adam M Zanation; Brian D Thorp; Charles S Ebert
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 3.858

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.