ArticlePEC innovation2023
Assessment of electronic patient education materials for adolescent bariatric surgery candidates: An environment scan.
Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Adolescents who opt for metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) will use the internet to learn about the procedure. The objective of this study is to assess the suitability of electronic patient education materials (ePEM) of North American centers that perform adolescent bariatric surgery. Methods: Canadian and American bariatric centers that perform adolescent MBS were identified from the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program and Google web-based searches. Suitability of ePEM for the adolescent readership was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Results: Sixty-five centers were evaluated from June to July 2020 with 41% citing adolescent specific material. Six percent of the ePEM were evaluated as 'not suitable', 69% were evaluated as 'adequate', and 25% were evaluated as 'superior'. Conclusion: Adequate ePEM scoring was obtained, but centers had little resources tailored to adolescent patients. Further research is needed to evaluate all the resources provided to adolescents (i.e., resources provided by the health team) to ensure the tools are appropriate for the adolescent readership. Innovation: This environmental scan provided insights to ePEM available for adolescents considering MBS.
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.