Michael Anthony Fajardo1, Kristie Rebecca Weir1,2,3, Carissa Bonner1,2,3, Danijela Gnjidic4, Jesse Jansen1,2,3. 1. Sydney School of Public Health, ASK-GP Centre of Research Excellence, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Wiser Health Care, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 4. School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
AIMS: To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). METHODS: Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. RESULTS: Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. CONCLUSIONS: Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.
AIMS: To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). METHODS: Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. RESULTS: Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. CONCLUSIONS: Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.
Authors: Ian A Scott; Sarah N Hilmer; Emily Reeve; Kathleen Potter; David Le Couteur; Deborah Rigby; Danijela Gnjidic; Christopher B Del Mar; Elizabeth E Roughead; Amy Page; Jesse Jansen; Jennifer H Martin Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Danielle M Muscat; Heather L Shepherd; Suzanne Morony; Sian K Smith; Haryana M Dhillon; Lyndal Trevena; Andrew Hayen; Karen Luxford; Don Nutbeam; Kirsten McCaffery Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-05-09
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Lyndal J Trevena; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Adrian Edwards; Wolfgang Gaissmaier; Mirta Galesic; Paul K J Han; John King; Margaret L Lawson; Suzanne K Linder; Isaac Lipkus; Elissa Ozanne; Ellen Peters; Danielle Timmermans; Steven Woloshin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Michael Chaiton; Rebecca Billington; Ilana Copeland; Luc Grey; Alex Abramovich Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-13 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Shannon McKinn; Carys Batcup; Samuel Cornell; Natasha Freeman; Jenny Doust; Katy J L Bell; Gemma A Figtree; Carissa Bonner Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Natali Jokanovic; Parisa Aslani; Sophie Carter; Mai Duong; Danijela Gnjidic; Jesse Jansen; David Le Couteur; Sarah Hilmer Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alexandra B Achterhof; Zsofia Rozsnyai; Emily Reeve; Katharina Tabea Jungo; Carmen Floriani; Rosalinde K E Poortvliet; Nicolas Rodondi; Jacobijn Gussekloo; Sven Streit Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-26 Impact factor: 3.240