Health literacy in rotator cuff repair: a quantitative assessment of the understandability of online patient education material

Gulbrandsen, Matthew T; O’Reilly, Olivia C.; Gao, Burke; Cannon, Donald M.; Jesurajan, Jose; Gulbrandsen, Trevor R.; Phipatanakul, Wesley P.

doi:10.1016/j.jseint.2023.06.016

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(38 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PEMAT understandability showed higher scores than the PEMAT actionability. This trend of superior understandability scores has been repeated across multiple studies regarding other health topics [20,30,31]. The average understandability score was 86.6%, while the average actionability score was 54.6%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

Mehra,

Brody,

Kollapaneni

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) are vascular deformities created by improper connections between arteries and veins, most commonly in the brain and spinal cord. The management is complex and patient-dependent; further understanding of patient education activities is imperative. Internet access has become more ubiquitous, allowing patients to utilize a large database of medical information online. Using Google Trends (GT) (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA), one can see the public interest in a particular topic over time. Further, when presented with numerous search results, patients may not be able to identify the highest-yielding resources, making objective measures of information quality and readability imperative. Methods A GT analysis was conducted for “hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia,” “cerebral aneurysm,” and “arteriovenous malformation”. These relative search volumes (RSV) were compared with the 2017 to 2019 annual USA AVM diagnosis quantity for correlation. These RSVs were also compared with the 2017 to 2019 annual USA deaths due to cerebral hemorrhagic conditions. One search was conducted for “brain arteriovenous malformation”. Since most users looking for health information online use only the first page of sources, the quality and readability analyses were limited to the first page of results on Google search. Five quality tools and six readability formulas were used. Results Pearson’s correlation coefficients showed positive correlations between USA AVM RSVs and annual AVM deaths per capita from 2017 to 2019 (R 2 =0.932). The AVM annual diagnosis quantity and AVM RSVs showed a strong positive correlation as well (R 2 =0.998). Hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia and cerebral aneurysms had strong positive correlations between their RSVs and their corresponding annual diagnoses in the 2017 to 2019 time period (R 2 =0.982, R 2 =0.709). One-way ANOVA, for USA’s 2004 to 2021 AVM RSVs and 2004 to 2019 deaths per capita, displayed no month-specific statistically significant repeating pattern (all p>0.483). The DISCERN tool had four websites that qualified as “poor” and five as “good.” The average score for the tool was “good.” The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark scores were very low on average, as four websites achieved zero points. There was a wide variance in the currency, relevance, authority, accuracy, and purpose (CRAAP) scores, indicating an inconsistent level of webpage reliability across results. The patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT) understandability (86.6%) showed much higher scores than the PEMAT actionability (54.6%). No readability score averaged at or below the American Medical Association (AMA)-recommended sixth-grade reading level. Conclusion These GT correlations may be due to patients and families with new diagnoses researching those same cond...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 62%

“…And (3), what is the overall rating of the publication? Furthermore, websites were given one of the five grades: excellent (63-75), good (51-62), fair (39-50), poor (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38), and very poor (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26) based on overall scores [14].…”

Section: Quality Of Internet Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

Mehra,

Brody,

Kollapaneni

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Enhancing Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability of Patient Handouts Revised by ChatGPT's Large Language Model

Swisher,

Wu,

Liu

et al. 2024

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo use an artificial intelligence (AI)‐powered large language model (LLM) to improve readability of patient handouts.Study DesignReview of online material modified by AI.SettingAcademic center.MethodsFive handout materials obtained from the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery websites were assessed using validated readability metrics. The handouts were inputted into OpenAI's ChatGPT‐4 after prompting: “Rewrite the following at a 6th‐grade reading level.” The understandability and actionability of both native and LLM‐revised versions were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results were compared using Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests.ResultsThe mean readability scores of the standard (ARS, American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery) materials corresponded to “difficult,” with reading categories ranging between high school and university grade levels. Conversely, the LLM‐revised handouts had an average seventh‐grade reading level. LLM‐revised handouts had better readability in nearly all metrics tested: Flesch‐Kincaid Reading Ease (70.8 vs 43.9; P < .05), Gunning Fog Score (10.2 vs 14.42; P < .05), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (9.9 vs 13.1; P < .05), Coleman‐Liau (8.8 vs 12.6; P < .05), and Automated Readability Index (8.2 vs 10.7; P = .06). PEMAT scores were significantly higher in the LLM‐revised handouts for understandability (91 vs 74%; P < .05) with similar actionability (42 vs 34%; P = .15) when compared to the standard materials.ConclusionPatient‐facing handouts can be augmented by ChatGPT with simple prompting to tailor information with improved readability. This study demonstrates the utility of LLMs to aid in rewriting patient handouts and may serve as a tool to help optimize education materials.Level of EvidenceLevel VI.

show abstract

A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of the readability and quality of online resources regarding thumb carpometacarpal joint replacement surgery

Lim,

Sen

2024

Journal of Hand and Microsurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health literacy in rotator cuff repair: a quantitative assessment of the understandability of online patient education material

Cited by 5 publications

References 22 publications

Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

Evaluating the Quality, Readability, and Activity of Online Information on Brain Arteriovenous Malformations

Enhancing Health Literacy: Evaluating the Readability of Patient Handouts Revised by ChatGPT's Large Language Model

A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of the readability and quality of online resources regarding thumb carpometacarpal joint replacement surgery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About