ArticleBMC research notes2023
Evaluating understandability and actionability of online education materials for home-care patients with COVID-19 in Japan.
Article in BMC research notes, 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.
- Evaluating the understandability and actionability of Japanese human papillomavirus vaccination educational materials on cervical cancer.Health promotion international · 2025Article
- A cross-sectional quantitative analysis of the readability and quality of online resources regarding thumb carpometacarpal joint replacement surgery.Journal of hand and microsurgery · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn Japan, educational materials on the home care of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were developed owing to limited access to medical care during the pandemic. This study quantitatively evaluated the understandability, actionability, natural flow, and readability of 87 materials published by local governments in Japan for patients with COVID-19. Their understandability and actionability were rated using the Japanese version of the Patient Education Material Evaluation Tool for Printed Materials (PEMAT-P). Natural flow and readability were rated using Global Quality Score (GQS) and jReadability, respectively.
resultsOf the 87 materials, 55 (62.1%) were understandable and 33 (37.9%) were actionable according to the PEMAT-P. Regarding understandability, the materials used medical terms without providing definitions and lacked summaries. Regarding actionability, the materials did not demonstrate explicit steps or utilize visual aids to help the readers take action. The mean (SD) of GQS was 3.44 (0.98), indicating a moderate level of naturalness and comprehensiveness of the materials. The mean (SD) score for readability was 2.4 (0.6), indicating a "lower advanced" level. However, challenges regarding the materials' plain language remained, such as defining medical terms, summarizing the content for understandability, and using charts and tables that encourage patients to act.
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.