4.3 Article

Assessment of Commonly Available Education Materials in Heart Failure Clinics

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 485-494

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e318220720c

关键词

cardiovascular diseases; health literacy; patient education; patient education materials; suitability and readability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Health literacy (HL) is an established independent predictor of cardiovascular outcomes. Approximately 90 million Americans have limited HL and read at the fifth grade level or lower. Therefore, we sought to determine the suitability and readability level of common cardiovascular patient education materials (PEM) related to heart failure and heart-healthy lifestyle. Methods and Results: The suitability and readability of written PEMs were assessed using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and Fry readability formula. The SAM criteria are composed of the following categories: message content, text appearance, visuals, and layout and design. We obtained a convenience sample of 18 English-written cardiovascular PEMs freely available from major health organizations. Two reviewers independently appraised the PEMs. Final suitability scores ranged from 12% to 87%. Readability levels ranged between 3rd and 15th grade level; the average readability level was 8th grade. Ninety-four percent of the PEMs were rated either superior or adequate on text appearance, but 50% or more of the PEMs were rated inadequate on each of the other categories of the SAM criteria. Only 2 (11%) PEMs had the optimum suitability score of 70% or higher and 5th grade or lower readability level suitable for populations with limited HL. Conclusions: Commonly available cardiovascular PEMs used by some major healthcare institutions are not suitable for the average American patient. The true prevalence of suboptimal PEMs needs to be determined because it potentially negatively impacts optimal healthcare delivery and outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据