The Journal of hand surgery · 2025
Readability of the Most Commonly Used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Hand Surgery.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Uppal Harjot, Garcia Daniel, Abdelmalek George, Farshchian Joseph, Sahai Nikhil, Emami Arash, McGinniss Andrew
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess surgical outcomes and patient perspectives on function, symptoms, and quality of life. The readability of patient-reported outcome measures is crucial for ensuring patients can understand and accurately complete them. The National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend that patient materials be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level. We aimed to evaluate whether PROMs identified in the hand literature meet these recommended reading standards.
METHODS: We conducted a readability analysis of 22 PROMs referenced in the hand literature. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. Scores were obtained using an online readability calculator. Patient-reported outcome measures meeting a FRES ≥ 80 or SMOG ˂ 7 were considered at a sixth-grade reading level or lower, per the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association guidelines.
RESULTS: Across all PROMs, the average FRES was 66 ± 12, and the average SMOG Index was 8 ± 1, corresponding to approximately an eighth- to ninth-grade reading level. Three PROMs met the target readability thresholds: Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function Upper Extremity, Patient Evaluation Measure, and the 6-item Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Scale. Several PROMs, including the Southampton Dupuytren's Scoring Scheme, Hand Assessment Tool, and Manual Ability Measure 16, demonstrated relatively low readability scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Most PROMs mentioned in the hand literature exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level, potentially affecting patient comprehension and data accuracy. Although improving readability may enhance patient understanding, altering PROM wording is not straightforward and may require extensive revalidation because changes risk affecting validity and reliability, underscoring the complexity of revising PROMs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings highlight the importance of raising awareness about PROM readability issues. Recognizing these readability challenges may encourage researchers, developers, and journal editors to consider recommended guidelines when proposing, modifying, or evaluating these measures.
METHODS: We conducted a readability analysis of 22 PROMs referenced in the hand literature. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. Scores were obtained using an online readability calculator. Patient-reported outcome measures meeting a FRES ≥ 80 or SMOG ˂ 7 were considered at a sixth-grade reading level or lower, per the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association guidelines.
RESULTS: Across all PROMs, the average FRES was 66 ± 12, and the average SMOG Index was 8 ± 1, corresponding to approximately an eighth- to ninth-grade reading level. Three PROMs met the target readability thresholds: Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function Upper Extremity, Patient Evaluation Measure, and the 6-item Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Scale. Several PROMs, including the Southampton Dupuytren's Scoring Scheme, Hand Assessment Tool, and Manual Ability Measure 16, demonstrated relatively low readability scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Most PROMs mentioned in the hand literature exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level, potentially affecting patient comprehension and data accuracy. Although improving readability may enhance patient understanding, altering PROM wording is not straightforward and may require extensive revalidation because changes risk affecting validity and reliability, underscoring the complexity of revising PROMs.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings highlight the importance of raising awareness about PROM readability issues. Recognizing these readability challenges may encourage researchers, developers, and journal editors to consider recommended guidelines when proposing, modifying, or evaluating these measures.