2017
DOI: 10.1080/15398285.2017.1377531
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating Patient Education Resources of Popular Clinical Databases

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0
2

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(4 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Actionability (the degree to which readers will know what to do after reading the material) refers to how people can determine the appropriate next steps (e.g., when and where to seek care, which healthy behaviours to adopt) based on the information contained in a PEIM (Bui et al, 2018; Harris et al, 2018; Lange et al, 2015; Ottenhoff et al, 2018; S. K. Patel et al, 2015; Vishnevetsky et al, 2018) Actionability had been evaluated in conjunction with two other criteria: readability and understandability. Due to the low readability of patient education resources, the necessary education level for understanding them was higher than the fifth grade, resulting in low understandability; and as a result, actionability was also low (Abdul Rahman et al, 2020; Bui et al, 2018; Gillum, 2017; Guitton, 2015; Gulbrandsen et al, 2022; Harris et al, 2018; Lamb et al, 2022; Lipari et al, 2019; Magrath et al, 2022; McClure et al, 2016; Miles et al, 2021; Sideris et al, 2021; Vishnevetsky et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2022).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Actionability (the degree to which readers will know what to do after reading the material) refers to how people can determine the appropriate next steps (e.g., when and where to seek care, which healthy behaviours to adopt) based on the information contained in a PEIM (Bui et al, 2018; Harris et al, 2018; Lange et al, 2015; Ottenhoff et al, 2018; S. K. Patel et al, 2015; Vishnevetsky et al, 2018) Actionability had been evaluated in conjunction with two other criteria: readability and understandability. Due to the low readability of patient education resources, the necessary education level for understanding them was higher than the fifth grade, resulting in low understandability; and as a result, actionability was also low (Abdul Rahman et al, 2020; Bui et al, 2018; Gillum, 2017; Guitton, 2015; Gulbrandsen et al, 2022; Harris et al, 2018; Lamb et al, 2022; Lipari et al, 2019; Magrath et al, 2022; McClure et al, 2016; Miles et al, 2021; Sideris et al, 2021; Vishnevetsky et al, 2018; Wang et al, 2022).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This criterion is evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) (Lipari et al, 2019). This criterion was examined in fourteen studies (Abdul Rahman et al, 2020;Alwani et al, 2021;Bui et al, 2018;Gillum, 2017;Guitton, 2015;Gulbrandsen et al, 2022;Harris et al, 2018;Lamb et al, 2022;Lipari et al, 2019;Magrath et al, 2022;McClure et al, 2016;Miles et al, 2021;Sideris et al, 2021;Vishnevetsky et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2022). 9 Complexity Three criteria are used to determine the complexity of materials: structure, density, and dependency.…”
Section: Comprehensibility or Comprehensionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations