| Abstract |
Introduction: Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is a complex lung infection requiring multi-disciplinary approach and management. Due to limited clinician-patient interactions, clinicians may refer patients to online resources to learn about the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of MAC. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends educational materials be written at a sixth-grade reading level and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that patient education materials be written at an eighth-grade reading level; however, several evaluations found these materials inaccessible due to high literacy levels. To date, there has never been a health literacy assessment of MAC patient education materials. The study aims to assess the health literacy of online patient education materials about MAC.
Methods: The patient education materials were evaluated for readability, actionability, understandability and clarity. Readability was assessed through the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Scale (FkGL), SMOG Index, Coleman Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Actionability and understandability was evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Clear Communication Index (CCI) was used to assess clarity.
Results: Ten patient education resources were evaluated: CDC, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, JAMA, American Thoracic Society (ATS), National Jewish Health, UpToDate, CHEST, WebMD, and Medline. The mean readability scores were as follows: FkGL (9.76), SMOG index (9.82), CLI (13.54), GFI (11.66), ARI (9.15). Four patient education materials were written at a sixth-grade reading level and eight patient education materials were written at an eighth-grade reading level. The majority of the materials received a passing score for understandability but failed to achieve a passing score for actionability. Cleveland Clinic, JAMA, and ATS all received a passing clarity score, indicating that they are easy to read. No patient education materials were available on UpToDate.
Conclusion: Most patient education materials scored poorly for actionability and clarity while scoring highly for readability and understandability. This study should serve as a guide for clinicians interested in offering online education materials to their patients. Increasing access to readable MAC educational materials should be a priority for those working at the intersection of public health, clinical care, and communications.
|
