Quality evaluation of patient educational resources for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. (29th July 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cano Valls, A; Gallagher, C; Mont, LL; Carro, E; Sanders, P; Hendriks, JM
• Is Part Of: European journal of cardiovascular nursing. Volume 20(2021)Supplement 1
• Publication Date: 2021-07-29
• Subjects: Cardiovascular system -- Diseases -- Nursing -- Periodicals; Cardiovascular Diseases -- nursing -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Nursing -- Periodicals; Vascular Diseases -- Periodicals; 610.7369105
• DOI: 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab060.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1474-5151

Abstract

Abstract: Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: None. Background: The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing rapidly with growing utilisation of catheter ablation (CA) as a treatment strategy. Education of individuals undertaking this procedure is diverse, with varying degrees of information provided and little standardisation. Many individuals utilise the internet as an educational resource. However, there is limited regulation of online patient information. Aims: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of web based patient education resources for patients undergoing CA in the management of AF. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was performed to obtain all freely accessible online educational resources designed to inform AF patients about CA. from inception until 1st October 2019. Three search engines were used: Google, Yahoo! and Bing, using the search terms "atrial fibrillation" and "catheter ablation" combined with "patient information and patient education" in English and Spanish. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) is a validated tool used to evaluate web-based patient education materials as well as printable tools. The PEMAT score objectively measures the understandability and actionability of printable tools for audio-visual material. Results: A total of 17 websites and 15 printable tools were included in the analysis. Non-government organizations developed 19% of materials and 75% were created by private or university hospitals. Nineteen materials (59.3%) were rated as highly understandable and 25 materials (21%) were rated as highly actionable, whilst ten materials had an actionability of 0% (6 websites and 4 printable tools). Less than a half of the materials evaluated were highly rated by the PEMAT score, with a total of 7 websites (41%) and 7 printable tools (46, 6%) scoring >70%. Conclusion: The overall understandability of educational CA material was high, whilst improvement of actionability is warranted. The addition of summaries, visual aids and tools such as checklists may improve quality. These findings have significant implications for developing new patient educational material for CA in AF.