Journal of vascular and interventional radiology : JVIR · 2015
Can Patients Comprehend the Educational Materials that Hospitals Provide about Common IR Procedures?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sadigh Gelareh, Hawkins C Matthew, O'Keefe John J, Khan Ramsha, Duszak Richard
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess the readability of online education materials offered by hospitals describing commonly performed interventional radiology (IR) procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online patient education materials from 402 hospitals selected from the Medicare Hospital Compare database were assessed. The presence of an IR service was determined by representation in the Society of Interventional Radiology physician finder directory. Patient online education materials about (i) uterine artery embolization for fibroid tumors, (ii) liver cancer embolization, (iii) varicose vein treatment, (iv) central venous access, (v) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement, (vi) nephrostomy tube insertion, (vii) gastrostomy tube placement, and (viii) vertebral augmentation were targeted and assessed by using six validated readability scoring systems.
RESULTS: Of 402 hospitals sampled, 156 (39%) were presumed to offer IR services. Of these, 119 (76%) offered online patient education material for one or more of the eight service lines. The average readability scores corresponding to grade varied between the ninth- and 12th-grade levels. All were higher than the recommended seventh-grade level (P < .05) except for nephrostomy and gastrostomy tube placement. Average Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scores ranged from 42 to 69, corresponding with fairly difficult to difficult readability for all service lines except IVC filter and gastrostomy tube placement, which corresponded with standard readability.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of hospitals offering IR services provide at least some online patient education material. Most, however, are written significantly above the reading comprehension level of most Americans. More attention to health literacy by hospitals and IR physicians is warranted.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online patient education materials from 402 hospitals selected from the Medicare Hospital Compare database were assessed. The presence of an IR service was determined by representation in the Society of Interventional Radiology physician finder directory. Patient online education materials about (i) uterine artery embolization for fibroid tumors, (ii) liver cancer embolization, (iii) varicose vein treatment, (iv) central venous access, (v) inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement, (vi) nephrostomy tube insertion, (vii) gastrostomy tube placement, and (viii) vertebral augmentation were targeted and assessed by using six validated readability scoring systems.
RESULTS: Of 402 hospitals sampled, 156 (39%) were presumed to offer IR services. Of these, 119 (76%) offered online patient education material for one or more of the eight service lines. The average readability scores corresponding to grade varied between the ninth- and 12th-grade levels. All were higher than the recommended seventh-grade level (P < .05) except for nephrostomy and gastrostomy tube placement. Average Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease scores ranged from 42 to 69, corresponding with fairly difficult to difficult readability for all service lines except IVC filter and gastrostomy tube placement, which corresponded with standard readability.
CONCLUSIONS: A majority of hospitals offering IR services provide at least some online patient education material. Most, however, are written significantly above the reading comprehension level of most Americans. More attention to health literacy by hospitals and IR physicians is warranted.