Patient Information on Benign Colorectal Disease: An Assessment of the Value and Effectiveness of Traditional Methods. (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Boyle, Connor; Bear, Greg; van Winsen, Marjolein; Nicholson, Gary
• Is Part Of: Journal of patient experience. Volume 7:Number 6(2020)
• Page Start: 1410
• Page End: 1416
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: health literacy -- communication -- patient feedback -- patient education; Patient satisfaction -- Periodicals; Patient satisfaction -- United States -- Periodicals; Patient participation -- Periodicals; Patient participation -- United States -- Periodicals; Patient satisfaction; Patient participation; United States; 362.1068
• DOI: 10.1177/2374373520957769
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2374-3735

Abstract

Health literacy is the best predictor of health status, with patient information leaflets (PILs) commonly used to improve information access. However, they can often be inconsistent. Benign colorectal disease can be challenging for patients and ensuring they are accurate and understandable is important. Available PILs in a tertiary unit were assessed. The Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level scores were used to calculate objective readability. Subjective assessment of readability, understandability, and patient opinion was assessed using a questionnaire. All PILs had objective readability scores at age 14 or older, above recommended advice. Three hundred sixty patient questionnaires were collected. The relationship between subjective readability and understandability was significant ( P < .05); the easier a patient was able to read the information the more likely they were to understand it. There was no link between objective and subjective readability—a more difficult calculated reading score didn't correspond to the patient finding it harder to read. Patients preferring paper information were significantly older than patients who preferred online information ( P = .01). Patient information leaflets remain valued by patients, and PILs that patients find easier to read are then better understood; however, ease of reading is not related to objective readability scoring and there was no consensus that a shift to online information is merited.