ArticleSaudi journal of anaesthesia
Development, validation, and usefulness of patient information leaflet for women undergoing Caesarean section.
Article in Saudi journal of anaesthesia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Patient information leaflets (PILs) are simple, inexpensive, and an effective means of providing information to patients. Leaflets allow patients to understand what to expect and what to know at their own pace. This study aimed to prepare, validate, and evaluate the efficacy of a PIL for female patients undergoing elective Caesarean section. Methodology: After approval from the hospital ethics committee, a PIL was prepared in English. Readability and design of the leaflet were checked using standard tests: Flesch Reading Ease test (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Baker Able Leaflet Design (BALD). It was translated into two regional languages. The PIL was tested among patients using a questionnaire. A total of 240 adult female patients scheduled for elective Caesarean section were included. Patient knowledge through pre-test and post-test was compared using the paired Results: The English leaflet had a FRE score of 76 and a FKGL score of 4.36 which indicated good readability. The English PIL had a BALD score of 26, whereas both regional languages had a score of 22. The mean age was 26.61 ± 4.75 years with a range from 18 to 40 years. The knowledge scores increased from 40 ± 19.06 in the pretest to 69.52 ± 13.85 in post-test. Younger age (negative effect; Conclusion: PILs are an economical and convenient tool for patient education. The intervention was effective across all education levels, with the largest effect sizes in the intermediate level of education group.
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.