Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38516499›Full record

ArticleCureus2024

Improving the Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Therapy.

Christine Stiller, Lindsay Brandt, Megan Adams, Nathan Gura

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Optimizing ChatGPT Applying prompt engineering to frequently asked questions in urologic oncology.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Christine StillerHuman Movement Science/Physical Therapy, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, USA.
Lindsay BrandtHuman Movement Science/Physical Therapy, Oakland University, Rochester Hills, USA.
Megan AdamsPhysical Therapy, OMPT Specialists Physical Therapy, Royal Oak, USA.
Nathan GuraPhysical Therapy, Ascension St. John, St. Clair Shores, USA.
Ascension · USOncology Specialists · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction Printed patient educational materials (PEM) are often written above the recommended sixth- to eighth-grade reading levels, resulting in decreased client understanding and subsequent poor health literacy. Researchers have demonstrated that it is possible to improve readability to enhance clients' understanding and health literacy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability of physical therapy (PT) PEM with and without modifications for improvement. Methods A convenience sample of 38 PT PEM of at least 10 sentences was obtained from a large suburban hospital system in the Midwestern region of the United States. Original and three modified versions (exclusion, revision, and combined exclusion/revision of words with >3 syllables) of the documents were assessed with the Simple Measure of "Gobbledygook" (SMOG). All document means were compared to the recommended reading levels, and the original document means were compared with modified conditions. Results A majority of the documents were above an eighth-grade reading level. All modified conditions resulted in statistically significant reading level decreases, but only the combined modified condition decreased to the eighth-grade level. Conclusion Even with modifications, most PEM were above the recommended reading levels. Additional methods for improving readability and increased education about health literacy for healthcare professionals may be necessary to improve client comprehension.

Indexed as

health literacypatient educationphysical therapyreadabilityrehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID38516499
PMCPMC10956377
OpenAlexW4391957412

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.