Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34894464›Full record

ArticleBreast (Edinburgh, Scotland)2022

Are English-language online patient education materials related to breast cancer risk assessment understandable, readable, and actionable?

Leslie R Lamb, Grayson L Baird, Ishita T Roy, Paul H S Choi, Constance D Lehman, Randy C Miles

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Modern internet search analytics and thyroidectomy: What are patients asking?World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Leslie R LambMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, 55 Fruit Street Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA. Electronic address: lrlamb@mgh.harvard.edu.
Grayson L BairdRhode Island Hospital, Warren Alpert School of Medicine at Brown University, Department of Diagnostic Imaging, 593 Eddy Street, Providence, RI, 02903, USA. Electronic address: GBaird@Lifespan.org.
Ishita T RoyMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, 55 Fruit Street Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA. Electronic address: iroy@mgh.harvard.edu.
Paul H S ChoiTufts Medical Center, 800 Washington St Boston, MA, 02111, USA. Electronic address: pchoi@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.
Constance D LehmanMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, 55 Fruit Street Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA. Electronic address: clehman@partners.org.
Randy C MilesMassachusetts General Hospital, Department of Radiology, 55 Fruit Street Boston, MA, 02114-2696, USA. Electronic address: rmiles@partners.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment. MATERIAL AND

methodsWe queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized.

results343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria.

conclusionsOPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsHealth LiteracyComprehensionFemaleHumansInternetLanguagePatient Education as TopicReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentUnited StatesBreast cancerPatient educationReadabilityRisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID34894464
PMCPMC8665407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.