Online Patient Resources for Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Cheah, Michael A.; Sarmiento, Samuel; Bernatowicz, Elizabeth; Rosson, Gedge D.; Cooney, Carisa M.

doi:10.1097/sap.0000000000002218

Cited by 8 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Database search and review of article references revealed 46 eligible articles for inclusion in this scoping review (Table 1). 8,10–54 These articles represented the spectrum of plastic surgery, including breast (22%), facial aesthetics (17%), general plastic surgery (13%), hand surgery (15%), f (9%), craniofacial (9%), lymphedema (7%), gender affirmation surgery (4%), lower extremity reconstruction (2%), and vascularized composite allotransplantation (2%) (Fig. 2).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this scoping review, the 36 articles that assessed the readability of plastic surgery internet-based resources utilizing these tools demonstrated a mean reading grade level consistently higher than the eighth grade, regardless of the sub topic analyzed (Table 2). 8,10–44…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another study, 60 parents of cleft patients completed a survey assessing comprehension of materials available on ASPS and American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association websites about the cause, surgical management, and perioperative care of their child's cleft condition. The mean score was 4.35 out of five questions, 21 36 websites 6.9-13.9 Barbarite et al 26 32 websites 10.7 Ziai et al 32 50 websites 9.22-12.16+ Santos et al 42 10 websites 12.2+ Misra et al 43 17 13 58 websites 10.7-11.4+ Vargas 14 10 websites 10.7-15.8+ Doval et al 20 10 websites 10.4 (academic) 10.8 (private) Cheah et al 22 20 websites 12.2 -15.0+ Vargas et al 23 10 websites 9.7-13.0+ Kennedy et al 27 10 websites 11.0 Ricci et al 29 12 websites 12.7-15.0+ Vargas et al 37 12 with no significant difference between ASPS and American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association materials (4.4 versus 4.29, P < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, level of education, ethnicity, and income were not associated with parent test scores (P = 0.38, P = 0.15, P = 0.3).…”

Section: Evaluating Health Literacy In Plastic Surgery Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Tiourin

Barton

Janis

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Health literacy of plastic surgery patients may affect surgical decisionmaking and perioperative outcomes. In addition to consulting a plastic surgeon, patients often refer to online-based resources to learn about surgical options. The aim of this scoping review was to identify evidence detailing the state of health literacy of plastic surgery patients and available resources to highlight areas of improvement for clinical practice and future research. Methods: Utilizing PubMed and Web of Science databases, 46 eligible studies that analyzed health literacy in plastic surgery patients and readability of plastic surgery resources were included. Extracted characteristics from eligible studies included study size, type of analysis, findings, and conclusions. Results: Regardless of plastic surgery procedure or subspecialty, resources presenting plastic surgery information to patients exceeded the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommended sixth-to eighth-grade reading level. Plastic surgery patients demonstrated greater knowledge of preoperative indications and surgical benefits compared with postoperative outcomes and surgical risks. Conclusions: Most health literacy research in plastic surgery focuses on readability of written internet-based resources as opposed to direct assessment of health literacy in plastic surgery patients. Plastic surgery resources exceed the recommended mean reading grade level. Dedicated efforts to recognize and accommodate a patient's level of health literacy in plastic surgery should be considered.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evaluating Health Literacy In Plastic Surgery Patientsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Tiourin

Barton

Janis

2022

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery - Global Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The findings indicated that 229 studies evaluated readability in the context of patient education, with 91 of those evaluated using only readability criteria (Abdul Rahman et al, 2020;Ahmadzadeh et al, 2014;Al Aqeel et al, 2018;Alderson et al, 2020;Alejos et al, 2021;Alpaydin et al, 2021;Alshaikh et al, 2021;Alshehri & Joury, 2019;Alwani et al, 2021;Ang et al, 2022;Arif & Ghezzi, 2018;Arslan et al, 2020;Avancini et al, 2021;Azer et al, 2017;Azer et al, 2018;Bacher et al, 2020;Bai et al, 2019;Barnes & Davies, 2015;Bernstam et al, 2005;Best et al, 2015;Betschart et al, 2017;Bojrab 2nd et al, 2020;Boureanu et al, 2021;Brennan et al, 2021;Carden et al, 2007;Cheah et al, 2020;Cheng et al, 2016;Choudhery et al, 2020;Colaco et al, 2013;Coleman et al, 2022;Cook et al, 2017;Corredera et al, 2018;Crabtree & Lee, 2022;Dalton et al, 2015;Davis et al, 1998;De Felippe & Kar, 2015;Docimo Jr. et al, 2022;Dorcely et al, 2015;Doubleday et al, 2021;…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Ahmadzadeh

Bahrami

Zare–Farashbandi

et al. 2023

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient education information material (PEIM) is an essential component of patient education programs in increasing patients' ability to cope with their diseases. Therefore, it is essential to consider the criteria that will be used to prepare and evaluate these resources.Objective: This paper aims to identify these criteria and recognize the tools or methods used to evaluate them.Methods: National and international databases and indexing banks, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Magiran, SID and ISC, were searched for this review. Original or review articles, theses, short surveys, and conference papers published between January 1990 and June 2022 were included.Results: Overall, 4688 documents were retrieved, of which 298 documents met the inclusion criteria. The criteria were grouped into 24 overarching criteria. The most frequently used criteria were readability, quality, suitability, comprehensibility and understandability. Conclusion: This review has provided empirical evidence to identify criteria, tools, techniques or methods for developing or evaluating a PEIM. The authors suggest that developing a comprehensive tool based on these findings is critical for evaluating the overall efficiency of PEIM using effective criteria.

show abstract

“…2,3 A prior study reported that BIA-ALCL online text-based materials are too complex for the average reader. 4 However, grade-level readability is only one of many factors that contribute to the overall utility of a resource, and there are many nontextual variables that can substantially affect consumer interpretation and understanding of a health resource. [5][6][7] In fact, US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) developed a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy, which specifies that health information must not just be readable but also accurate, suitable, accessible, and actionable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Online Education Tools

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose In light of highly publicized media coverage on breast implant recalls and Food and Drug Administration hearings on breast implant safety, online searches of these topics have surged. It is thus critical to determine whether such searches are providing meaningful information for those who use them. Patient/laywomen-directed online education materials on breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) must not only be comprehensible but also accurate, actionable, and culturally concordant, especially as more diverse populations turn to the internet for breast implant–related information. This study assessed the overall suitability of BIA-ALCL patient–directed educational text and video-based materials online. Methods This was a cross-sectional, multimetric investigation of online text– and video-based patient-directed educational materials for BIA-ALCL using multiple validated measures. Two reviewers assessed each resource. Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact analyses were used as appropriate to compare text- and video-based online resources. Results In total, 30 websites and 15 videos were evaluated, more than half (56%) of which were from academic/physician or governmental/nonprofit sources. Overall, website and video content, as well as quality, varied by source. Academic/physician or governmental/nonprofit sources tended to be more comprehensive and have higher-quality information than commercial/media outlet sources. Median actionability of websites was 38%, well below the threshold of 70% used in the literature to identify actionable resources. The median suitability score for BIA-ALCL websites was 57%, which is considered “adequate” based on published thresholds. The mean overall Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool score for websites was 2.4; Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool scores higher than 2.5 are generally regarded as culturally sensitive. In general, videos were more understandable than websites. Substantial interrater reliability across the validated tools used in this study was noted using Pearson correlation coefficients. Conclusions Online resources varied in content and quality by source. As BIA-ALCL becomes an increasingly salient topic among both providers and patients, it is important to empower women with accurate information about this implant-associated cancer. Of available resources, providers should refer patients or those seeking more information to websites from governmental/academic organizations (“.gov” or “.org” domains) and videos from academic/physician or governmental sources, given that among high-quality resources, these were most clear/comprehensible. Overall, there is a need for improved online content on this topic.

show abstract

Online Patient Resources for Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Online Education Tools

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About