ArticleJournal of patient experience2020
Assessment of Written Patient Information Pertaining to Cirrhosis and Its Complications: A Pilot Study.
Article in Journal of patient experience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Auditory Profile-Based Hearing Aid Fitting: Self-Reported Benefit for First-Time Hearing Aid Users.Audiology research · 2024Article
- Knowledge needs in patients with Liver Disease: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- Optimizing Patient Information Material for a New Psycho-Oncological Care Program Using a Participatory Health Research Approach in Germany.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Quality of life and unmet needs in patients with chronic liver disease: A mixed-method systematic review.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWritten patient information may play an important role in the compliance of the cirrhosis disease, but little is known on the quality and patients' understanding of them.
objectivesTo assess the written patient information leaflet pertaining to cirrhosis and its complications.
methodsThe Baker Able Leaflet Design (BALD) criteria and the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) questionnaire were applied to assess design, layout characteristics, and information quality. Readability was calculated using the Læsbarhedsindex (LIX) and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). A cross-sectional study with a mixed methods design was carried out, using a questionnaire consisting of closed- and open-ended questions.
resultsThe BALD score was 24 and the EQIP score 70%. The LIX score was 46 and the SMOG score 15.8. Sixteen phrases from the leaflet were selected to explore patients' understanding. Four phrases were understood by 100% of the patients, 6 phrases by more than 50% of the patients, and 6 phrases were understood by less than 50% of the patients. The meaning condensation showed that knowledge and understanding of cirrhosis and its complications were not enhanced by the availability of the leaflet.
conclusionThe leaflet had a good design, layout, and information quality but was difficult to read. Patients appeared to relate poorly to the leaflet and demonstrated limited health literacy. These results suggest that an assessment of written patient information ought to be made in an effort to improve readability. Further studies on intervention to improve patients' health literacy are recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.