MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2925081353 · doi:10.2196/12134

Reading Level and Suitability of Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) Education in a Mobile App (CHF Info App): Descriptive Design Study

2019· article· en· W2925081353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ponrathi Athilingam, Barbara A Redding

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityReading (process)Index (typography)Heart failureMedicineDescriptive statisticsCalculatorScale (ratio)Health literacyComputer scienceCardiologyWorld Wide WebHealth careStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Education at the time of diagnosis or at discharge after an index illness is a vital component of improving outcomes in congestive heart failure (CHF). About 90 million Americans have limited health literacy and have a readability level at or below a 5th-grade level, which could affect their understanding of education provided at the time of diagnosis or discharge from hospital. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper was to assess the suitability and readability level of a mobile phone app, the CHF Info App. METHODS: A descriptive design was used to assess the reading level and suitability of patient educational materials included in the CHF Info App. The suitability assessment of patient educational materials included in the CHF Info App was independently assessed by two of the authors using the 26-item Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool. The reading grade level for each of the 10 CHF educational modules included in the CHF Info App was assessed using the comprehensive online Text Readability Consensus Calculator based on the seven most-common readability formulas: the Flesch Reading Ease Formula, the Gunning Fog Index, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula, the Coleman-Liau Index, the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook Index, the Automated Readability Index, and the Linsear Write Formula. The reading level included the text-scale score, the ease-of-reading score, and the corresponding grade level. RESULTS: The educational materials included in the CHF Info App ranged from a 5th-grade to an 8th-grade reading level, with a mean of a 6th-grade level, which is recommended by the American Medical Association. The SAM tool result demonstrated adequate-to-superior levels in all four components assessed, including content, appearance, visuals, and layout and design, with a total score of 77%, indicating superior suitability. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that the CHF Info App will be suitable and meet the recommended health literacy level for American adult learners. Further testing of the CHF Info App in a longitudinal study is warranted to determine improvement in CHF knowledge.

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 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)0.004
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.373 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207