Hannah Claire Sibold1, Mary Catherine Thomson2, Rachel Hianik3, Eli R Abernethy4, Gavin P Campbell5, Bradley Sumrall6, Melissa Dillmon7, Josh Simmons8, Jeffrey M Switchenko9, Margie D Dixon1, Rebecca D Pentz1. 1. Department of Hematology and Oncology, Winship Cancer Institute and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia. 3. UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 4. Department of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia. 6. Hematology and Oncology, Central Georgia Cancer Care, Macon, Georgia. 7. Medical Oncology, Harbin Clinic Tony Warren Cancer Center, Rome, Georgia. 8. Hematology, Lewis Hall Singletary Oncology Center, Thomasville, Georgia. 9. Department Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4-9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. RESULTS: All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%-92%) suggested no changes to the videos. CONCLUSION: Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology-treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. LAY SUMMARY: Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high-need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.
BACKGROUND: It is critical patients understand the terms used to describe oncology treatments; however, even basic chemotherapy terminology can be misunderstood. Rural communities tend to have especially low levels of health literacy compared with nonrural communities. To address low health literacy in rural communities, this study tested rural participants' understanding of previously developed educational chemotherapy videos that were designed for an underserved urban population. Participants were also asked for feedback to determine if the videos could be improved. METHODS: Fifty English-speaking patients who reside in counties classified as rural according to the Rural-Urban Continuum Code designations (RUCC 4-9) participated in the study. Participants were asked to define 6 chemotherapy terms before and after viewing a short, animated video explaining the term in English. Rates of correct and incorrect definitions provided by participants were also compared with previously published results from an urban cohort. RESULTS: All participants had statistically significantly higher rates of correct definitions for all 6 terms following the video intervention. Palliative chemotherapy understanding improved the most (10% correct prevideo and 76% postvideo intervention). For each video, the majority of participants (77%-92%) suggested no changes to the videos. CONCLUSION: Given the prevalence of low health literacy in rural communities, it is important to have effective educational interventions to improve the understanding of basic oncology-treatment terminology. This study found that short, educational videos, originally designed for an underserved urban population, can significantly improve understanding of commonly misunderstood chemotherapy terminology in a rural setting as well. LAY SUMMARY: Chemotherapy terminology can be confusing to patients. Understanding can be especially difficult in areas with low health literacy, such as underserved urban and rural communities. To address this concern, previously developed short, animated videos describing basic chemotherapy terminology were found to improve patient understanding in an underserved urban setting. In this study, the videos were tested in a rural population and their effectiveness was established. Participants in the rural setting were significantly more likely to correctly define all 6 tested terms after watching the videos. Educational tools for high-need populations are essential to ensure patients can understand the treatment they receive.
Authors: India J Ornelas; Khanh Ho; J Carey Jackson; Jaime Moo-Young; Anh Le; H Hoai Do; Bouapanh Lor; Maya Magarati; Ying Zhang; Victoria M Taylor Journal: Health Educ Behav Date: 2017-12-04
Authors: Denise L Yeung; Kristin S Alvarez; Marissa E Quinones; Christopher A Clark; George H Oliver; Carlos A Alvarez; Adeola O Jaiyeola Journal: J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) Date: 2016-11-03
Authors: Nadine Bol; Ellen M A Smets; M Mattijs Rutgers; Jacobus A Burgers; Hanneke C J M de Haes; Eugène F Loos; Julia C M van Weert Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2013-06-30
Authors: Ashley Meilleur; S V Subramanian; Jesse J Plascak; James L Fisher; Electra D Paskett; Elizabeth B Lamont Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kerry L Kilbridge; Gertrude Fraser; Murray Krahn; Elizabeth M Nelson; Mark Conaway; Randall Bashore; Andrew Wolf; Michael J Barry; Debra A Gong; Robert F Nease; Alfred F Connors Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-03-23 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Kathryn Goggins; Catherine Couey; Vivian M Yeh; Katharine M Donato; John F Schnelle; Kenneth A Wallston Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Shannon M Blee; Jamil Facdol; Margie D Dixon; Viraj Master; Jeffrey M Switchenko; Rebecca D Pentz Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-02-02 Impact factor: 4.452