Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Readability of patient education materials on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging
0
Zitationen
4
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
Abstract Aims We assessed the readability level of online patient education materials (PEMs) for cardiac MRI (CMRI) to determine whether they meet the standard health literacy needs as determined by the US National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association guidelines. Methods and results We evaluated the readability of CMRI PEMs from 5 websites using the Flesch–Kincaid Reading Ease (FKRE), Flesch–Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning–Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook index (SMOGI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). PEMs on the British Heart Foundation (BHF) website yielded the highest mean FKRE score, while the RadiologyInfo.org (RadInfo) website yielded the highest mean score on the CLI compared to all the other websites. Statistical analysis of individual predictors revealed that average words per sentence (P < 0.001) and average syllables per word (P < 0.001) were strong determinants of FKRE for the RadInfo PEMs. In contrast, sentences (P = 0.044), words (P = 0.046), average words per sentence (P = <0.001), and average syllables per word (P = <0.001) were significant predictors of FKRE for the InsideRadiology (InsRad) PEMs. The sensitivity analysis consistently confirmed the robustness and primary influence of average words per sentence and average syllables per word. Conclusion The BHF and American Heart Association emphasize accessible CMRI communication, whereas RadInfo, InsRad, and the European Society of Cardiology PEMs may be less suitable for low-health-literacy audiences. Strategies aimed at enhancing the comprehensibility of patient education materials should primarily focus on reducing the average complexity of words and shortening average sentence lengths.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations
2006 · 6.299 Zit.
Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)
2004 · 6.278 Zit.
Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models
2012 · 5.953 Zit.
Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review
2011 · 5.324 Zit.
Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century
2000 · 5.042 Zit.