4.5 Review

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 85, 期 7, 页码 1396-1406

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13912

关键词

deprescribing; health literacy; patient education

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council, Centre for Research Excellence [1136849, 1037028]
  2. National Heart Foundation of Australia [101326]
  3. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners [TGL16b]
  4. Sydney Medical School, ECR PhD scholarship
  5. Therapeutic Guidelines [TGL16b]
  6. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia [1136849] Funding Source: NHMRC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). Methods Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. Results Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. Conclusions Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

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

4.5
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