Readability, suitability and comprehensibility in patient education materials for Swedish patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery: a mixed method design.

OBJECTIVE To characterize education materials provided to patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery to gain a better understanding of how to design readable, suitable, comprehensible materials. METHOD Mixed method design. Deductive quantitative analysis using a validated suitability and comprehensibility assessment instrument (SAM+CAM) was applied to patient education materials from 27 Swedish hospitals, supplemented by language technology analysis and deductive and inductive analysis of data from focus groups involving 15 former patients. RESULTS Of 125 patient education materials used during the colorectal cancer surgery process, 13.6% were rated 'not suitable', 76.8% 'adequate' and 9.6% 'superior'. Professionally developed stoma care brochures were rated 'superior' and 44% of discharge brochures were 'not suitable'. Language technology analysis showed that up to 29% of materials were difficult to comprehend. Focus group analysis revealed additional areas that needed to be included in patient education materials: general and personal care, personal implications, internet, significant others, accessibility to healthcare, usability, trustworthiness and patient support groups. CONCLUSION Most of the patient education materials were rated 'adequate' but did not meet the information needs of patients entirely. Discharge brochures particularly require improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Using patients' knowledge and integrating manual and automated methods could result in more appropriate patient education materials.

[1]  Dina Demner-Fushman,et al.  Biomedical Text Mining: A Survey of Recent Progress , 2012, Mining Text Data.

[2]  A. Edwards,et al.  Interventions before consultations for helping patients address their information needs. , 2007, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  D. Helitzer,et al.  Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. , 2009, Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer Center.

[4]  J. Rowland,et al.  Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). , 2005, Patient education and counseling.

[5]  D. Morgan.  Reconsidering the Role of Interaction in Analyzing and Reporting Focus Groups , 2010, Qualitative health research.

[6]  K. Fearon,et al.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (eras Clinical Nutrition , 2022 .

[7]  Chronic Disease Division.  Cancer facts and figures , 2010 .

[8]  S. Post,et al.  ‘Fast‐track’ colonic surgery in Austria and Germany – results from the survey on patterns in current perioperative practice , 2009, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[9]  Lena Mårtensson,et al.  Health literacy -- a heterogeneous phenomenon: a literature review. , 2012, Scandinavian journal of caring sciences.

[10]  Shirley Large,et al.  Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: a national survey , 2000, The Lancet.

[11]  T. Freeman.  'Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views. , 2006, Journal of advanced nursing.

[12]  J. Johansson,et al.  Perceived information after surgery for colorectal cancer – an explorative study , 2012, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[13]  C. Speros,et al.  Health literacy: concept analysis. , 2005, Journal of advanced nursing.

[14]  A. Štenberg,et al.  The Lived Experience of the Early Postoperative Period after Colorectal Cancer Surgery the Lived Experience of the Early Postoperative Period after Colorectal Cancer Surgery , 2022 .

[15]  Guda van Noort,et al.  Tailored information for cancer patients on the Internet: effects of visual cues and language complexity on information recall and satisfaction. , 2011, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  M. Litwin,et al.  Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. , 2004, Patient education and counseling.

[17]  C. Shieh,et al.  Printed Health Information Materials: Evaluation of Readability and Suitability , 2008, Journal of community health nursing.

[18]  A. Anderzén-Carlsson,et al.  Life is back to normal and yet not - partners' and patient's experiences of life of the first year after colorectal cancer surgery. , 2012, Journal of clinical nursing.

[19]  M. Teper.  Large N , 2005, hep-lat/0509019.

[20]  C. Taylor.  Patients' experiences of 'feeling on their own' following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a phenomenological approach. , 2001, International journal of nursing studies.

[21]  Daniela B. Friedman,et al.  A Systematic Review of Readability and Comprehension Instruments Used for Print and Web-Based Cancer Information , 2006, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[22]  C. van Mossel,et al.  Information needs across the colorectal cancer care continuum: scoping the literature. , 2012, European journal of cancer care.

[23]  Charu C. Aggarwal,et al.  Mining Text Data , 2012 .

[24]  A. Hill,et al.  Perioperative care: a survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons , 2011, Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.

[25]  E. Idvall,et al.  Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis. , 2007, Journal of advanced nursing.

[26]  Raymond L. Ownby,et al.  Influence of Vocabulary and Sentence Complexity and Passive Voice on the Readability of Consumer-Oriented Mental Health Information on the Internet , 2005, AMIA.

[27]  William H Shrank,et al.  A critical review of FDA-approved Medication Guides. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[28]  Suzanne K. Linder,et al.  Beyond Reading Level: A Systematic Review of the Suitability of Cancer Education Print and Web-based Materials , 2010, Journal of Cancer Education.

[29]  C. Rees,et al.  Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[30]  M. Ehnfors,et al.  Experiences of the Postoperative Recovery Process: An Interview Study , 2008, The open nursing journal.

[31]  J. Macfie,et al.  Current pattern of perioperative practice in elective colorectal surgery; a questionnaire survey of ACPGBI members. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[32]  B. Glimelius,et al.  Differences according to educational level in the management and survival of colorectal cancer in Sweden. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[33]  P. Malmström,et al.  Towards optimised information about clinical trials; identification and validation of key issues in collaboration with cancer patient advocates. , 2011, European journal of cancer care.

[34]  K. McKenna,et al.  The Suitability of Written Education Materials for Stroke Survivors and Their Carers , 2003, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[35]  L. G. Doak,et al.  Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: Strategies for clinicians , 1998, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[36]  M. Büchler,et al.  Care after colonic operation--is it evidence-based? Results from a multinational survey in Europe and the United States. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[37]  Tammy Hoffmann,et al.  Analysis of stroke patients' and carers' reading ability and the content and design of written materials: recommendations for improving written stroke information. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[38]  K. Fearon,et al.  Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Elective Colonic Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations , 2013, World Journal of Surgery.

[39]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  Designing effective written health education materials: Considerations for health professionals , 2004, Disability and rehabilitation.

[40]  T. Hoffmann,et al.  Assessing the Suitability of Written Stroke Materials: An Evaluation of the Interrater Reliability of the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) Checklist , 2012, Topics in stroke rehabilitation.

[41]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .

[42]  Véronique Hoste,et al.  Towards an Improved Methodology for Automated Readability Prediction , 2010, LREC.

[43]  I. Harder,et al.  After colonic surgery: The lived experience of participating in a fast-track programme , 2009, International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being.

[44]  Lori W Turner,et al.  Evaluation of web-based osteoporosis educational materials. , 2005, Journal of women's health.

[45]  Hong Yu,et al.  TRANSLATING BIOLOGY: TEXT MINING TOOLS THAT WORK. , 2008, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[46]  Janice M. Morse,et al.  Mixed Method Design: Principles and Procedures , 2009 .

[47]  M. Wolf,et al.  Development and validation of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-cancer). , 2005, Patient education and counseling.

[48]  Douglas Biber,et al.  Variation across speech and writing: Methodology , 1988 .

[49]  D. Friedman,et al.  Literacy and health literacy as defined in cancer education research: A systematic review , 2008 .

[50]  K. Lassen,et al.  Patterns in current perioperative practice: survey of colorectal surgeons in five northern European countries , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[51]  J. Wardle,et al.  Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients. , 2008, European journal of cancer.

[52]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Answering the Call for a Standard Reliability Measure for Coding Data , 2007 .

[53]  T. Volsko,et al.  Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. , 2008, Respiratory care.

[54]  D. Friedman,et al.  An Exploratory Study of Older Adults' Comprehension of Printed Cancer Information: Is Readability a Key Factor? , 2007, Journal of health communication.

[55]  Margareta Ehnfors,et al.  Development of a questionnaire to measure patient-reported postoperative recovery: content validity and intra-patient reliability. , 2009, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[56]  L. Clayton.  TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate material used in patient education. , 2009, Journal of advanced nursing.

[57]  L. G. Doak,et al.  Teaching Patients With Low Literacy Skills , 1985 .