MP15-18 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READABILITY OF PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS FOR COMMON UROLOGIC CONDITIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Quality of Life1 Apr 2014MP15-18 AN ANALYSIS OF THE READABILITY OF PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS FOR COMMON UROLOGIC CONDITIONS Katie Dalziel, Stephen Steele, and Jason Izard Katie DalzielKatie Dalziel More articles by this author , Stephen SteeleStephen Steele More articles by this author , and Jason IzardJason Izard More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.571AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Health literacy has been shown to be an important determinant of outcomes in numerous disease states. In an effort to improve health literacy, the Canadian Urologic Association (CUA) publishes freely accessible patient information materials (PIM) on common urologic conditions. Current recommendations suggest that PIM be written at the 4th to 6th grade level to facilitate understanding in lower literacy patients. We sought to evaluate the readability of the CUA’s PIM. METHODS All PIM were accessed through the CUA website (http://www.cua.org). For each document we recorded the average number of characters per word, words per sentence and sentences per paragraph. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) were determined for each PIM. Low FRES scores are associated with text that is more difficult to interpret and FKGL scores indicate the approximate reading grade level required to understand the text. The number of educational graphics contained in each PIM was tabulated. We hypothesized that the complexity of materials may vary by disease state and affect PIM readibility. Average readability values were calculated for the CUA generated PIM categories based on anatomical disease site. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify differences between PIM categories. RESULTS Across all PIM, FRES values were low (mean 47.5, SD 7.47). This corresponded to a median FKGL of 10.5 (range 8.1 – 12.0). Among PIM categories, the Infertility and Sexual Function PIM exhibited the highest average FKGL (mean 11.6), however differences in scores between categories were not statistically different (p = 0.38). The average number of words per sentence was also highest in the Infertility and Sexual Function PIM and significantly higher than other categories (mean 17.2, p = 0.01). On average there were 1.4 graphics displayed per PIM (range 0 – 4) which did not vary significantly by disease state (p = 0.928). CONCLUSIONS Current patient information materials published by the CUA may be too complex for low literacy patients. All PIM tested require at least an 8th grade reading level and most require at least a 10th grade reading level. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e152 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Katie Dalziel More articles by this author Stephen Steele More articles by this author Jason Izard More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".