Colorectal cancer screening patient education materials-how effective is online health information?

被引:11
|
作者
John, Elizabeth Sheena [1 ,2 ]
John, Ann M. [3 ]
Hansberry, David R. [4 ]
Thomas, Prashant J. [5 ]
Agarwal, Prateek [6 ]
Deitch, Christopher [7 ]
Chokhavatia, Sita [2 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Dept Internal Med, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[2] Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Med Sch, Dept Gastroenterol, New Brunswick, NJ USA
[3] Rutgers New Jersey Med Sch, Dept Med, Newark, NJ USA
[4] Jefferson Univ Hosp, Dept Radiol, Philadelphia, PA USA
[5] Rutgers New Jersey Med Sch, Dept Radiol, Newark, NJ USA
[6] Univ Penn, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[7] Cooper Univ Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Camden, NJ USA
关键词
Colorectal cancer screening; Readability; Health literacy; LIDA; READABILITY ASSESSMENT; QUALITY ASSESSMENT; AMERICAN ACADEMY; LITERACY; INTERNET;
D O I
10.1007/s00384-016-2652-0
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Patients screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently turn to the Internet to improve their understanding of tests used for detection, including colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and CT colonography. It was of interest to determine the quality and readability levels of online health information. The screening tools were googled, and the top 20 results of each test were analyzed for readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability. The 80 articles excluded scientific literature and blogs. We used ten validated readability scales to measure grade levels, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly statistical different (HSD) post hoc analyses to determine any statistically significant differences among the four diagnostic tests. The LIDA tool assessed overall quality by measuring accessibility, usability, and reliability. The 80 articles were written at an 11.7 grade level, with CT colonography articles written at significantly higher levels than FOBT articles, F(3, 75) = 3.07, p = 0.033. LIDA showed moderate percentages in accessibility (83.9 %), usability (73.0 %), and reliability (75.9 %). Online health information about CRC screening tools are written at higher levels than the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) recommended third to seventh grade levels. More patients could benefit from this modality of information if it were written at a level and quality that would better facilitate understanding.
引用
收藏
页码:1817 / 1824
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Systematic Assessment of Quality of Patient Information on Colorectal Cancer Screening on the Internet
    Schreuders, Elisabeth H.
    Grobbee, Elisabeth J.
    Kuipers, Ernst J.
    Spaander, Manon C.
    van Zanten, Sander Veldhuyzen
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2015, 148 (04) : S783 - S783
  • [22] Patient-Rated Importance and Receipt of Information for Colorectal Cancer Screening
    Flocke, Susan A.
    Stange, Kurt C.
    Cooper, Gregory S.
    Wunderlich, Tracy L.
    Oja-Tebbe, Nancy
    Divine, George
    Lafata, Jennifer Elston
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2011, 20 (10) : 2168 - 2173
  • [23] Are German information materials on colorectal cancer screening understandable or do they fail? Rating of health information by users with different educational backgrounds
    Seidel, G.
    Muench, I.
    Dreier, M.
    Borutta, B.
    Walter, U.
    Dierks, M. -L.
    BUNDESGESUNDHEITSBLATT-GESUNDHEITSFORSCHUNG-GESUNDHEITSSCHUTZ, 2014, 57 (03) : 366 - 379
  • [24] Naloxone Online Information Exceeds the Recommended Reading Level for Patient Education Materials
    Dang, Nhu
    Khunte, Mihir
    Zhong, Anthony
    Chatterjee, Avik
    JOURNAL OF STUDIES ON ALCOHOL AND DRUGS, 2023, 84 (05) : 680 - 683
  • [25] How to Make Health Information Technology Effective: The Challenge of Patient Engagement
    Graffigna, Guendalina
    Barello, Serena
    Riva, Giuseppe
    ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2013, 94 (10): : 2034 - 2035
  • [26] A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Patient Education Materials for Colorectal Cancer
    Kang, Ravinder
    Saunders, Catherine H.
    Carpenter-Song, Elizabeth A.
    Moore, Kayla O.
    Trooboff, Spencer W.
    Columbo, Jesse A.
    Goodney, Philip P.
    Wong, Sandra L.
    Ivatury, Srinivas Joga
    DISEASES OF THE COLON & RECTUM, 2021, 64 (10) : 1249 - 1258
  • [27] Colorectal Cancer Screening by Stool DNA Testing and Patient Emotional Health
    Simpson, William G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2019, 114 (05): : 829 - 829
  • [28] Readability of online monkeypox patient education materials: Improved recognition of health literacy is needed for dissemination of infectious disease information
    Frost, Jessica C.
    Baldwin, Alexander J.
    INFECTION DISEASE & HEALTH, 2023, 28 (02) : 88 - 94
  • [29] How much do cancer patients understand? A critical assessment of online patient health information in oncology.
    John, Elizabeth S.
    John, Ann Mary
    Hansberry, David R.
    Thomas, Prashant J.
    Tseng, Jennifer
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 33 (15)
  • [30] How to Ensure Patient Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance in Your Practice
    Hassan, Cesare
    Kaminski, Michal F.
    Repici, Alessandro
    GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2018, 155 (02) : 252 - 257