Context.— Patients with rare tumors have difficulty finding reliable information about their disease. Facebook patient support groups allow patients to educate one another. Objective.— To investigate how these patients perceive the value of pathologists, both in Facebook groups and real-world patient care. Design.— Survey links were posted in 12 Facebook patient groups: 6 with an active pathologist member (angiosarcoma, epithelioid hemangioendothelioma, epithelioid sarcoma, dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans [×2], and desmoid fibromatosis), and 6 without “active” pathologist involvement (aggressive angiomyxoma, chondrosarcoma, Ewing sarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, liposarcoma, and osteosarcoma). Results.— A total of 542 people responded (403 were patients): 264 from groups with a pathologist, and 278 from groups without active pathologist involvement. Of groups with an active pathologist, respondents agreed the pathologist's posts helped them better understand their disease (107 of 119; 90%) and relieved some of their disease-related anxiety (92 of 119; 77%). And for these groups 98% (117 of 119) of respondents agreed that having a pathologist in their group was a good thing; 83% (192 of 232) wanted more pathologists involved. More respondents from groups with an active pathologist (219 of 236; 93%) than without one (215 of 252; 85%) agreed: “pathologists are an important part of the patient care team for patients with cancer and other rare tumors” (P = .008). Conclusions.— This study is the first to evaluate the impact of pathologist interaction with Facebook patient support groups and to assess perceptions about the specialty of pathology from a large group of patients with rare tumors. Pathologist involvement in Facebook patient groups appears to positively influence patient perception of the importance of pathologists. We hope these data will encourage more pathologists to participate in Facebook patient support groups.

Objective The National Institutes of Health recommends readability of patient material not exceed sixth-grade level. Our aim was to determine readability of American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) patient education documents. Methods Available English- and Spanish-language IUGA patient information leaflets and AUGS patient fact sheets were scored for grade reading level. Readability assessment was performed using Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Fry graph formulas for English documents. For Spanish documents, Fernandez-Huerta and SOL readability formulas were utilized. Each document was assessed by a health literacy expert using standards of plain language best practices. Results We assessed 86 documents: 18 AUGS, 34 IUGA, and 34 IUGA Spanish documents. Readability combined scores for English AUGS documents ranged from 8th to 12th grade level equivalents, whereas English IUGA documents ranged from 7th to 13th. Combined average readability score for AUGS sheets was 9.9 ± 1.2 grade level equivalents versus 10.5 ± 1.3 for IUGA leaflets. The AUGS documents had lower grade level equivalents on all 3 readability scales. Spanish-language IUGA leaflets had an average readability score of 5.9 ± 0.6 grade level equivalents, with a range of fifth to seventh. Health literacy expert analysis found only 1 document met all the criteria for plain language best practice. Conclusions All assessed AUGS and IUGA patient information English documents had readability scores above National Institutes of Health–recommended reading level. Spanish IUGA documents were written at a lower reading level than their English counterparts. To best meet patient education needs, future materials development should emphasize readability and utilization of plain language best practices.

examine the implications of the scoring change on future obstetrics and gynecology residency applicants.METHODS: Surveys were distributed to obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors (PD) for all 291 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs. The survey assessed their viewpoints about the STEP 1 exam and asked respondents to rank the importance of variables used in assessment of potential applicants before and after the change to pass/fail. The survey was approved by the University of Alabama at Birmingham Institutional Review Board. RESULTS:We received 70 responses (response rate524.0%). While most (60%) PDs believe that STEP 1 scores do not accurately predict a resident's clinical performance, the majority (68.6%) disagreed that students will be better prepared clinically following the change to pass/fail. Clerkship grades were ranked as the most important variable in evaluating applicants both before and after the transition to pass/fail. Number of abstracts/presentations/publications and volunteer experiences saw the greatest increases in rank of importance with pass/fail as opposed to before.CONCLUSION: Despite the shortcomings of the STEP 1 exam in predicting clinical performance and the opportunity for more holistic review, obstetrics and gynecology PDs are skeptical of a transition to pass/fail scoring. The change will necessitate that alternative variables play a greater role in evaluation of residency applicants.

No abstract