Evaluating co‐created patient‐facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results. Issue 2 (24th October 2020) - Dwyer, Andrew A.
Abstract: Patients often have difficulty understanding genetic test reports. Technical language and jargon can impede comprehension and limit patients using results to act on findings. One potential way to improve patient understanding of genetic test reports is to provide patient‐facing materials. This study aimed to examine understandability and actionability of co‐created patient‐facing materials for genetic test results in a research context. We combined interprofessional perspectives and patient engagement to co‐create patient‐facing materials for patients undergoing research genetic testing for congenital hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (Kallmann syndrome). The iterative development process was guided by principles of health literacy and human‐centered design (i.e., design thinking). Readability was assessed using eight validated algorithms. Patients and parents evaluated materials using a web‐based survey. The gold standard Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for print materials (PEMAT‐P) was employed to measure understandability (content, style, use of numbers, organization, design, use of visual aids) and actionability. PEMAT‐P scores >80% were considered high quality. Results were analyzed descriptively and correlations performed to identify relationships between education/health literacy and PEMAT‐P ratings. A consensus score of eight algorithms indicated the materials were an 8 th –9th grade reading level. Our findings are consistent with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 'average difficulty' classification (i.e., 7th–9th grade). In total, 61 patients/parents evaluated the materials. 'Visual Aids' received the lowest mean PEMAT‐P rating (89%). All other parameters scored 90%–97%. PEMAT‐P scores did not differ according to educational attainment (less than college vs. college or more, p = 0.28). Participants with adequate health literacy were more likely to approve of the 'organization' of information ( p < 0.05). Respondents with low health literacy had more favorable views of 'visual aids' ( p < 0.01). Involving patients in a co‐creation process can produce high‐quality patient‐facing materials that are easier to understand.