ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2023
Assessing the Functional Accessibility, Actionability, and Quality of Patient Education Materials from Canadian Cancer Agencies.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the quality of online patient education materials for gastric adenocarcinoma.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Challenges of using generative AI for patient education in chronic heart failure: an evaluation of content quality, readability, and actionability in cross-platform LLM-generated texts.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Large language model chatbots for patient education in kidney stones: a scoping review.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- An Analysis of the Readability of Public-Facing Information Relating to Prevention of Infectious Diseases by Vaccination.British journal of biomedical science · 2025Article
- Assessment of printed lung cancer surgery patient education materials in the United States.JTCVS open · 2024Article
- Exploring the barriers to the development of organizational health literacy in health institutions to meet the needs of older patients from multiple perspectives: a mixed-methods study.BMC geriatrics · 2024Article
- Assessing the Effectiveness of an E-Coaching Intervention in Improving Family Support for Individuals with Mental Disorders: A Quasi-Experimental Approach.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023Article
- Assessment of online patient education material for eye cancers: A cross-sectional study.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Patient education materials (PEM)s were extracted from provincial cancer agencies to determine their organizational health literacy by evaluating the quality, actionability, and functional accessibility (e.g., readability and understandability) of their PEMs. PEMs from 10 provincial agencies were assessed for their grade reading level (GRL), using eight numerical and two graphical readability scales, and underwent a difficult word analysis. The agencies were assessed for PEM quality using two methods (JAMA benchmarks and DISCERN), while actionability and understandability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Seven hundred and eighty-six PEMs were analyzed. The overall average GRL was 9.3 ± 2.1, which is above the recommended 7th GRL for health information. The difficult word analysis showed that 15.4% ± 5.1% of texts contained complex words, 35.8% ± 6.8% of texts contained long words, and 24.2% ± 6.6% of texts contained unfamiliar words. Additionally, there was high overlap between the most frequently identified difficult words in the PEMs and the most frequently misunderstood words by cancer patients identified in the literature. Regarding quality indicators, no agency displayed all four indicators according to the JAMA benchmarks and DISCERN scores ranged between 38 (poor) to 66 (excellent). PEMAT scores ranged between 68% to 88% for understandability and 57% to 88% for actionability. PEMs continue to be written at a level above the recommended GRL across all provinces, and there was overall high variability in the quality, understandability, and actionability of PEMs among provincial agencies. This represents an opportunity to optimize materials, thus ensuring understanding by a wider audience and improving health literacy among Canadian cancer patients.
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.