J K Papadakos1,2,3, E Giannopoulos4, S McBain5, L Forbes6, P Jain5, D Samoil4, J Wang5, V Zwicker5, C Fox4, L Moody5, R McLeod7. 1. Patient Education, Patient Experience, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Canada. Janet.papadakos@uhnresearch.ca. 2. Cancer Health Literacy Research Centre, Cancer Education Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 585 University Avenue, ELLICSR PMB B-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. Janet.papadakos@uhnresearch.ca. 3. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. Janet.papadakos@uhnresearch.ca. 4. Cancer Health Literacy Research Centre, Cancer Education Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 585 University Avenue, ELLICSR PMB B-130, Toronto, ON, M5G 2N2, Canada. 5. Patient Education, Patient Experience, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Canada. 6. Systemic Treatment Program, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Canada. 7. Clinical Programs & Quality Initiatives, Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario), Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most patients diagnosed with cancer are administered systemic therapy and these patients are counselled and given printed education (PE) materials. High rates of low health literacy highlight the need to evaluate the quality of these PE materials. METHODS: A current state assessment of the quality of PE materials was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patient education leaders from 14 cancer centres submitted print materials on the topic of systemic cancer therapy to the assessment team. To report adherence to PE quality and health literacy best practices, the following validated measures were used: readability (FRY, SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease), understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)). Materials at grade level 6 or lower and with PEMAT scores greater than 80% were considered to meet health literacy best practices. RESULTS: A total of 1146 materials were submitted; 366 met inclusion criteria and 83 were selected for assessment. Most materials scored below the 80% target for understandability (x̄ = 73%, 31-100%) and actionability (x̄ = 68%, 20-100%), and above the recommended grade 6 readability level (x̄ = grade 9) meaning that the majority did not meet quality standards or best practices. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there is significant opportunity to improve the quality of PE materials distributed by cancer centres. The quality of PE materials is a critical safety and equity consideration when these materials convey important safety and self-care directives.
PURPOSE: Most patients diagnosed with cancer are administered systemic therapy and these patients are counselled and given printed education (PE) materials. High rates of low health literacy highlight the need to evaluate the quality of these PE materials. METHODS: A current state assessment of the quality of PE materials was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Patient education leaders from 14 cancer centres submitted print materials on the topic of systemic cancer therapy to the assessment team. To report adherence to PE quality and health literacy best practices, the following validated measures were used: readability (FRY, SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease), understandability and actionability (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)). Materials at grade level 6 or lower and with PEMAT scores greater than 80% were considered to meet health literacy best practices. RESULTS: A total of 1146 materials were submitted; 366 met inclusion criteria and 83 were selected for assessment. Most materials scored below the 80% target for understandability (x̄ = 73%, 31-100%) and actionability (x̄ = 68%, 20-100%), and above the recommended grade 6 readability level (x̄ = grade 9) meaning that the majority did not meet quality standards or best practices. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that there is significant opportunity to improve the quality of PE materials distributed by cancer centres. The quality of PE materials is a critical safety and equity consideration when these materials convey important safety and self-care directives.
Entities:
Keywords:
Health literacy; Neoplasms; Patient education; Plain language; Systemic therapy
Authors: Kristine Sørensen; Stephan Van den Broucke; James Fullam; Gerardine Doyle; Jürgen Pelikan; Zofia Slonska; Helmut Brand Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 3.295
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
Authors: Rebecca M Speck; Angela DeMichele; John T Farrar; Sean Hennessy; Jun J Mao; Margaret G Stineman; Frances K Barg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-01-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Terry C Davis; Mark V Williams; Estela Marin; Ruth M Parker; Jonathan Glass Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Penelope Schofield; Michael Jefford; Mariko Carey; Kathryn Thomson; Melanie Evans; Carl Baravelli; Sanchia Aranda Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2007-05-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Elochukwu Fortune Ezenwankwo; Portia Motsoeneng; Elizabeth Maria Atterbury; Yumna Albertus; Estelle Victoria Lambert; Delva Shamley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-21 Impact factor: 3.603