Literature DB >> 27663932

Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.

Stephen A Rosenberg1, David M Francis1, Craig R Hullet1, Zachary S Morris1, Jeffrey V Brower1, Bethany M Anderson2, Kristin A Bradley2, Michael F Bassetti2, Randall J Kimple3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Nearly two-thirds of cancer patients seek information about their diagnosis online. We assessed the readability of online patient education materials found on academic radiation oncology department Web sites to determine whether they adhered to guidelines suggesting that information be presented at a sixth-grade reading level. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Association of American Medical Colleges Web site was used to identify all academic radiation oncology departments in the United States. One-third of these department Web sites were selected for analysis using a random number generator. Both general information on radiation therapy and specific information regarding various radiation modalities were collected. To test the hypothesis that the readability of these online educational materials was written at the recommended grade level, a panel of 10 common readability tests was used. A composite grade level of readability was constructed using the 8 readability measures that provide a single grade-level output.
RESULTS: A mean of 5605 words (range, 2058-12,837) from 30 department Web sites was collected. Using the composite grade level score, the overall mean readability level was determined to be 13.36 (12.83-13.89), corresponding to a collegiate reading level. This was significantly higher than the target sixth-grade reading level (middle school, t (29) = 27.41, P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Online patient educational materials from academic radiation oncology Web sites are significantly more complex than recommended by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services. To improve patients' comprehension of radiation therapy and its role in their treatment, our analysis suggests that the language used in online patient information should be simplified to communicate the information at a more appropriate level.
Copyright © 2016 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27663932      PMCID: PMC5219938          DOI: 10.1016/j.prro.2016.07.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pract Radiat Oncol        ISSN: 1879-8500


  19 in total

1.  The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication.

Authors:  Susan Koch-Weser; Ylisabyth S Bradshaw; Lisa Gualtieri; Susan S Gallagher
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2010

2.  Using digital videos displayed on personal digital assistants (PDAs) to enhance patient education in clinical settings.

Authors:  Tina Penick Brock; Scott R Smith
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 4.046

3.  A new readability yardstick.

Authors:  R FLESCH
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1948-06

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 influences self-management behavior in asthma.

Authors:  Sujeev S Bains; Sonia N Bains
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Prospective trial of a video educational tool for radiation oncology patients.

Authors:  Carol A Hahn; Laura J Fish; Renee H Dunn; Edward C Halperin
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.339

7.  Randomized trial examining the effect of two prostate cancer screening educational interventions on patient knowledge, preferences, and behaviors.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; David Nelson; David Radosevich; Sean Nugent; Ann B Flood; Nancy Dillon; Jeremy Holtzman; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Evaluation of an education program for patients with breast cancer receiving radiation therapy.

Authors:  Diane Jahraus; Shirley Sokolosky; Norma Thurston; Dianlin Guo
Journal:  Cancer Nurs       Date:  2002-08       Impact factor: 2.592

9.  Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments.

Authors:  Peter F Svider; Nitin Agarwal; Osamah J Choudhry; Aaron F Hajart; Soly Baredes; James K Liu; Jean Anderson Eloy
Journal:  Am J Otolaryngol       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 1.808

10.  Evidence-based health information from the users' perspective--a qualitative analysis.

Authors:  Irene Hirschberg; Gabriele Seidel; Daniel Strech; Hilda Bastian; Marie-Luise Dierks
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-10-10       Impact factor: 2.655

View more
  10 in total

1.  A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials.

Authors:  Alexandra Martin; J Ryan Stewart; Jeremy Gaskins; Erin Medlin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Health Literacy and Radiation Therapy: a Current State Assessment of Patient Education Materials.

Authors:  Eleni Giannopoulos; Sarah McBain; Meredith Giuliani; Jenney Wang; Victoria Zwicker; Colleen Fox; Janet Papadakos
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 1.771

3.  Medical physicists should meet with patients as part of the initial consult.

Authors:  Bradley W Schuller; Kristi R G Hendrickson; Yi Rong
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.102

4.  A program to train medical physicists for direct patient care responsibilities.

Authors:  Derek W Brown; Todd F Atwood; Kevin L Moore; Robert MacAulay; James D Murphy; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2018-10-17       Impact factor: 2.102

5.  Virtual Reality-Based Education for Patients Undergoing Radiation Therapy.

Authors:  Liam J Wang; Brian Casto; Join Y Luh; Samuel J Wang
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 1.771

6.  Evaluation of a breastmilk hand expression toolkit: the M.I.L.K survey study.

Authors:  Kameela Miriam Alibhai; Malia S Q Murphy; Sandra Dunn; Erin Keely; Paloma O'Meara; Josdalyne Anderson; Darine El-Chaâr
Journal:  Int Breastfeed J       Date:  2022-01-15       Impact factor: 3.461

7.  Three discipline collaborative radiation therapy (3DCRT) special debate: A physicist's time is better spent in direct patient/provider interaction than in the patient's chart.

Authors:  Todd F Atwood; Narottam Lamichhane; Krisha Howell; Stephanie E Weiss; Louise Bird; Charles Pearson; Michael C Joiner; Michael M Dominello; Jay Burmeister
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 2.243

8.  Precision patient education using a "flipped classroom" approach.

Authors:  Bradley W Schuller; Christina Burch; Theresa Casterton; Catie Crowther; Jordan Fowler; Matthew H Stenmark
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 2.243

9.  RTAnswers Online Patient Education Materials Deviate From Recommended Reading Levels.

Authors:  Stephen A Rosenberg; Ryan A Denu; David Francis; Craig R Hullett; Michael Fisher; Jessica M Schuster; Michael F Bassetti; Randall J Kimple
Journal:  Appl Radiat Oncol       Date:  2018-06-19

Review 10.  A review of patient questions from physicist-patient consults.

Authors:  Todd F Atwood; Derek W Brown; Titania Juang; Kevin L Moore; Kristen A McConnell; Jennifer M Steers; James D Murphy; Arno J Mundt; Todd Pawlicki
Journal:  J Appl Clin Med Phys       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 2.102

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.