Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38441716›Full record

ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2024

An effort to improve the collection of patient-generated data: readability and understandability of patient-reported outcomes measures in a survivorship cohort.

Camila Chiodi, Jonathan Epstein, Johanna Arvis, Elise Martin, Aude Barbier, Antonio Di Meglio, Emma Gillanders, Guillemette Jacob, Gwenn Menvielle, Sibille Everhard and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Observational
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

13 authors.

Camila ChiodiCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. camilakchiodi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-7042-383X
Jonathan EpsteinUniversité de Lorraine, APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Johanna ArvisCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Elise MartinCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Aude BarbierCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Antonio Di MeglioCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Emma GillandersCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Guillemette JacobSeintinelles, Paris, France.
Gwenn MenvielleCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Sibille EverhardUNICANCER, Paris, France.
Francis GuilleminUniversité de Lorraine, APEMAC, Nancy, France.
Ines Vaz LuisCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.
Maria Alice FranzoiCancer Survivorship Group, Inserm Unit 981 Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn this study, we evaluated readability and understandability of nine French-language Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) that are currently used in a contemporary longitudinal cohort of breast cancer survivors as part of an effort to improve equity in cancer care and research.

methodsReadability of PROMs was assessed using the Flesh Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Gunning's Fog Index (FOG), and the FRY graphics. Readability was considered ideal if mean score ≤ 6th-grade level and acceptable if between 6th and 8th grade. Understandability was evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and defined as ideal if PEMAT ≥ 80%. The Evaluative Linguistic Framework for Questionnaires (ELF-Q) provided additional qualitative elements to assess understandability. Plain-language best practice was met if both readability and understandability were ideal.

resultsNone of the 9 PROMs evaluated had ideal readability scores and only 1 had an acceptable score. Understandability ranged from 55% to 91%, and only 3 PROMs had ideal scores. ELF-Q identified points for improvement in several understandability dimensions of the PROMs. None of the instruments met the definition of plain-language best practice.

conclusionNone of the studied PROMs met the standards of readability and understandability. Future development and translation of PROMs should follow comprehensive linguistic and cultural frameworks to ensure plain-language standards and enhance equitable patient-centered care and research.

Indexed as

ComprehensionPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBreast NeoplasmsCancer SurvivorsCohort StudiesFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansLongitudinal StudiesMiddle AgedQuality of LifeSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvivorshipPatient-reported outcome measuresPROMsPROsReadabilitySurvivorshipUnderstandability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.