MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019641760 · doi:10.1097/jcn.0b013e31822ad3dd

Readability and Content of Patient Education Material Related to Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators

2012· article· en· W2019641760 on OpenAlex
Patricia H. Strachan, Sonya de Laat, Sandra Carroll, Lisa Schwartz, Katie Vaandering, Gurjit K. Toor, Heather M. Arthur

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReadabilityMedicinePatient educationImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorContent analysisThematic analysisPlain languagePopulationFamily medicineMedical emergencyReading (process)Medical educationQualitative researchCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are increasingly offered to patients for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Candidates for ICD receive ICD-related patient education material when they make decisions to consent or decline a primary prevention ICD. Printed patient education material directed at ICD candidates has not been the focus of direct appraisal. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the readability and content of ICD-related print education materials made available to patients who were enrolled in a study involving patient decision making for ICD from 3 ICD sites in southern Ontario, Canada. METHODS: All ICD print materials referred to during interviews and/or that were available in ICD site waiting rooms were collected for analysis. Readability testing was conducted using the "simple measurement of gobbledygook" and Fry methods. The material was evaluated according to selected plain-language criteria, thematic content analysis, and rhetoric analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-one print materials were identified and analyzed. Documents were authored by device manufacturers, tertiary care hospitals, and cardiac support organizations. Although many documents adhered to plain-language recommendations, text-reading levels were higher than recommended. Twelve major content themes were identified. Content focused heavily on the positive aspects of living with the device to the exclusion of other possible information that could be relevant to the decisions that patients made. CONCLUSIONS: Print-based patient education materials for ICD candidates are geared to a highly literate population. The focus on positive information to the exclusion of potentially negative aspects of the ICD, or alternatives to accepting 1, could influence and/or confuse patients about the purpose and implications of this medical device. Development of print materials is indicated that includes information about possible problems and that would be relevant for the multicultural and debilitated population who may require ICDs. The findings are highly relevant for nurses who care for primary prevention ICD candidates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it