Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35521818›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2022

Assessment of patient education materials for age-related macular degeneration.

Elisa Wang, Michael Kalloniatis, Angelica Ly

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Assessment of patient education materials for age-related macular degeneration.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2022
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Elisa WangCentre for Eye Health, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0592-9383
Michael KalloniatisCentre for Eye Health, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5264-4639
Angelica LyCentre for Eye Health, The University of New South Wales Sydney, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7881-1522
UNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAge-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a leading cause of vision loss. It is helpful for patients living with AMD to understand the prognosis, risk factors and management of their condition. Online education materials are a popular and promising channel for conveying this knowledge to patients with AMD. However, the quality of these materials-particularly with respect to qualities such as 'understandability' and 'actionability'-is not yet known. This study assessed a collection of online materials about AMD based on these qualities of 'understandability' and 'actionability'.

methodsOnline education materials about AMD were sourced through Google from six English-speaking nations: Australia, New Zealand, USA, UK, Ireland and Canada. Three Australian/New Zealand trained and registered optometrists participated in the grading of the 'understandability' and 'actionability' of online education materials using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT).

resultsThis study analysed a total of 75 online materials. The mean 'understandability' score was 74% (range: 38%-94%). The 'understandability' PEMAT criterion U11 (calling for a summary of the key points) scored most poorly across all materials. The mean 'actionability' score was 49% (range: 0%-83%). The 'actionability' PEMAT criterion A26 (using 'visual aids' to make instructions easier to act on) scored most poorly across all materials.

conclusionMost education materials about AMD are easy to understand, but difficult to act on, because of a lack of meaningful visual aids. We propose future enhancements to AMD education materials-including the use of summaries, visual aids and a habit tracker-to help patients with AMD improve their understanding of disease prognosis, risk factors and eye assessment schedule requirements.

Indexed as

Health LiteracyMacular DegenerationAustraliaComprehensionHumansPatient Education as TopicactionabilityAMDmacular degenerationpatient education materialsPEMATunderstandability

Identifiers

PMID35521818
PMCPMC9325046
OpenAlexW4228997616

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.