MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393902487 · doi:10.1161/jaha.123.030140

Evaluating Readability, Understandability, and Actionability of Online Printable Patient Education Materials for Cholesterol Management: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4393902487 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chaitanya Bhatt, Ethan Lin, Laura Legere, Cynthia A. Jackevicius, Dennis T. Ko, Douglas S. Lee, Kathryn Schade, Sharon Johnston, Todd J. Anderson, Jacob A. Udell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsInstitut du Savoir MontfortLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryTed Rogers Centre for Heart ResearchHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern University
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryWomen's College HospitalWestern University of Health SciencesUniversity of TorontoHuron University CollegeUniversity of OttawaU.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
KeywordsReadabilityHealth literacyMEDLINEPatient educationMedicineFamily medicineMedical educationLiteracyDyslipidemiaPsychologyDiseaseInternal medicineComputer scienceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Dyslipidemia management is a cornerstone in cardiovascular disease prevention and relies heavily on patient adherence to lifestyle modifications and medications. Numerous cholesterol patient education materials are available online, but it remains unclear whether these resources are suitable for the majority of North American adults given the prevalence of low health literacy. This review aimed to (1) identify printable cholesterol patient education materials through an online search, and (2) evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of each resource to determine its utility in practice. Methods and Results We searched the MEDLINE database for peer‐reviewed educational materials and the websites of Canadian and American national health organizations for gray literature. Readability was measured using the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and scores between fifth‐ and sixth‐grade reading levels were considered adequate . Understandability and actionability were scored using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and categorized as superior (>80%), adequate (50%–70%), or inadequate (<50%). Our search yielded 91 results that were screened for eligibility. Among the 22 educational materials included in the study, 15 were identified through MEDLINE, and 7 were from websites. The readability across all materials averaged an 11th‐grade reading level (Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level=11.9±2.59). The mean±SD understandability and actionability scores were 82.8±6.58% and 40.9±28.60%, respectively. Conclusions The readability of online cholesterol patient education materials consistently exceeds the health literacy level of the average North American adult. Many resources also inadequately describe action items for individuals to self‐manage their cholesterol, representing an implementation gap in cardiovascular disease prevention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.082
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.082
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.544
Teacher spread0.420 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207