Cargando…

Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Delaney, Francis T., Doinn, Tiarnán Ó., Broderick, James M., Stanley, Emma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8531160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01094-3
_version_ 1784586793877766144
author Delaney, Francis T.
Doinn, Tiarnán Ó.
Broderick, James M.
Stanley, Emma
author_facet Delaney, Francis T.
Doinn, Tiarnán Ó.
Broderick, James M.
Stanley, Emma
author_sort Delaney, Francis T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety. METHODS: A total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman–Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests. RESULTS: The cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6–17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8–7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8–5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 (‘difficult’). CONCLUSION: Currently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-021-01094-3.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8531160
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85311602021-11-04 Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care? Delaney, Francis T. Doinn, Tiarnán Ó. Broderick, James M. Stanley, Emma Insights Imaging Original Article BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety. METHODS: A total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman–Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests. RESULTS: The cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6–17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8–7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8–5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 (‘difficult’). CONCLUSION: Currently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13244-021-01094-3. Springer International Publishing 2021-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8531160/ /pubmed/34674063 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01094-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Article
Delaney, Francis T.
Doinn, Tiarnán Ó.
Broderick, James M.
Stanley, Emma
Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title_full Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title_fullStr Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title_full_unstemmed Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title_short Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
title_sort readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: what are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8531160/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674063
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01094-3
work_keys_str_mv AT delaneyfrancist readabilityofpatienteducationmaterialsrelatedtoradiationsafetywhataretheimplicationsforpatientcentredradiologycare
AT doinntiarnano readabilityofpatienteducationmaterialsrelatedtoradiationsafetywhataretheimplicationsforpatientcentredradiologycare
AT broderickjamesm readabilityofpatienteducationmaterialsrelatedtoradiationsafetywhataretheimplicationsforpatientcentredradiologycare
AT stanleyemma readabilityofpatienteducationmaterialsrelatedtoradiationsafetywhataretheimplicationsforpatientcentredradiologycare