How well do patient education materials for Clostridium difficile infection score? A systematic evaluation

Zellmer, Caroline; Zimdars, Peggy; Parker, Sarah; Safdar, Nasia

doi:10.3396/ijic.v11i2.010.15

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohen coefficient of .994 obtained for the interrater reliability implied a fair scoring agreement between the 2 raters. This interrater reliability was relatively higher than that in previous studies [9,[18][19][20][21][22][23]28]. Analyzing the rating scores for the 24 items provided by the 2 raters, we found that high interrater agreement was associated with less subjective rating criteria.…”

Section: Reliabilitycontrasting

confidence: 58%

“…A few previous studies that used the PEMAT to assess the comprehensibility and actionability of health education materials described interrater reliability. Studies using 2 or more raters usually calculated Cohen coefficient [9,[18][19][20][21][22][23]28]. Cohen coefficients of <0.2, 0.21-0.4, 0.41-0.6, 0.61-0.8, and more than 0.8 are regarded as poor, fair, moderate, strong, and nearly complete agreement, respectively [41].…”

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PEMAT was widely applied to studies in English-and non-English-speaking countries (see Multimedia Appendix 1), enabling health care practitioners to select or develop suitable education materials for readers with varying health literacy [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Some studies reported the interrater reliability of one or both domains [18][19][20][21], the interrater reliability of the items classified by topic [22], or the interrater reliability at the item level of the PEMAT-P [23]. Some studies used the PEMAT to identify problems in patient education materials, for example, by evaluating web-based education materials for patients who took nonvitamin K oral anticoagulants [24].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Chinese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study

Shan¹,

Ji²,

Dong³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Providing people with understandable and actionable health information can considerably promote healthy behaviors and outcomes. To this end, some valid and reliable scales assessing the patient-friendliness of health education materials, like the PEMAT-P (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials), have been well developed in English-speaking countries. However, the English version of the PEMAT-P has not been translated and adapted into simplified Chinese and validated in mainland China. Objective This study sought to translate the PEMAT-P tool into a simplified Chinese (Mandarin) version (C-PEMAT-P, a Chinese version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for printable materials) and verify its validity and reliability for assessing the comprehensibility and actionability of health education resources written in simplified Chinese. As a result, the validated C-PEMAT-P could be used to guide health researchers and educators to design more comprehensible and actionable materials for more tailored and targeted health education and interventions. Methods We translated the PEMAT-P into simplified Chinese in the following three steps: (1) forward-translating the PEMAT-P into simplified Chinese, (2) back-translating the simplified Chinese version into English, and (3) testing translation equivalence linguistically and culturally by examining the original English version of the PEMAT-P and the back-translated English version of the tool. Any discrepancies between the original English tool and the back-translated English tool were resolved through a panel discussion among the research team of all authors to produce a revised forward-translated Chinese version (C-PEMAT-P). We then evaluated the clarity of construction and wording as well as the content relevance of the C-PEMAT-P using a 4-point ordinal scale to determine its content validity. After that, 2 native Chinese speakers (health educators) used the C-PEMAT-P to rate 15 health education handouts concerning air pollution and health to validate their reliability. We calculated the Cohen coefficient and Cronbach α to determine the interrater agreement and internal consistency of the C-PEMAT-P, respectively. Results We finalized the translated Chinese tool after discussing the differences between the 2 English versions (original and back-translated) of the PEMAT-P, producing the final Chinese version of the PEMAT-P (C-PEMAT-P). The content validity index of the C-PEMAT-P version was 0.969, the Cohen coefficient for the interrater scoring agreement was 0.928, and the Cronbach α for internal consistency was .897. These values indicated the high validity and reliability of the C-PEMAT-P. Conclusions The C-PEMAT-P has been proven valid and reliable. It is the first Chinese scale for assessing the comprehensibility and actionability of Chinese health education materials. It can be used as an assessment tool to evaluate health education materials currently available and a guide to help health researchers and educators design more comprehensible and actionable materials for more tailored and targeted health education and interventions.

show abstract

Section: Reliabilitycontrasting

confidence: 58%

Section: Comparison With Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Chinese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study

Shan¹,

Ji²,

Dong³

et al. 2023

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These studies found that there was no significant difference between the PEMAT scores of two raters on webpages on tonsillectomy [25] or maritime health related information [26] at the p < 0.05 level. In addition, evaluations of patient education materials on c. Diff and surgical site infections had kappa values of 0.80 when comparing understandability and actionability scores among 3 raters [13, 14].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

Vishnevetsky

Walters

Tan

2018

Patient Education and Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, studies have reported a worrying gap in the knowledge about CDI among health care workers [84–86] and the suboptimal quality of educational materials for patients [87]. Lack of clinical suspicion was identified as a key factor leading to under– and misdiagnosis of CDI cases in Europe [15], which can hinder adequate and timely implementation of IPC measures.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Infection prevention and control of Clostridium difficile: a global review of guidelines, strategies, and recommendations

Balsells¹,

Filipescu²,

Kyaw³

et al. 2016

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundClostridium difficile is the leading cause of health care–associated infections. Given the high incidence of C. difficile infection (CDI) and the lack of primary prevention through immunization, health care professionals should be aware of the most current guidance, as well as strengths and limitations of the evidence base underpinning this guidance.MethodsWe identified publicly available national or organizational guidelines related to CDI infection and prevention control (IPC) published between 2000 and 2015 and for any health care setting through an internet search using the Google search engine. We reviewed CDI–targeted IPC recommendations and describe the assessment of evidence in available guidelines.ResultsWe identified documents from 28 countries/territories, mainly from acute care hospitals in North America, the Western Pacific, and Europe (18 countries). We identified only a few specific recommendations for long–term care facilities (LTCFs) and from countries in South America (Uruguay and Chile), South East Asia (Thailand), and none for Africa or Eastern Mediterranean. Of 10 IPC areas, antimicrobial stewardship was universally recognized as essential and supported by high quality evidence. Five other widely reported “strong” recommendations were: effective environment cleaning (including medical equipment), case isolation, use of personal protective equipment, surveillance, and education. Several unresolved and emerging issues were documented and currently available evidence was classified mainly as of mixed quality.ConclusionOur review underlines the need for targeted CDI IPC guidelines in several countries and for LTCFs. International harmonisation on the assessment of the evidence for best practices is needed as well as more robust evidence to support targeted recommendations.

show abstract

How well do patient education materials for Clostridium difficile infection score? A systematic evaluation

Cited by 5 publications

References 4 publications

The Chinese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study

The Chinese Version of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials: Translation, Adaptation, and Validation Study

Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

Infection prevention and control of Clostridium difficile: a global review of guidelines, strategies, and recommendations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About