Assessment of Printed Lung Cancer Surgery Patient Education Materials in the United States

Overview

Journal JTCVS Open

Date 2025 Jan 9

PMID 39780812

Authors

Woorin Jang

Savanna Kerstiens

Rachel Nordgren

Anne Dijkstra

Marina DePablo

Lauren Gleason

Darren Bryan

Jessica S Donington

Mark K Ferguson

Jane L Holl

Maria Lucia Madariaga

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: Well-designed patient education materials (PEMs) increase health literacy, which has been linked to better surgical patient outcomes. The quality of lung cancer surgery PEMs is unknown, however. Here we assessed printed lung cancer surgery PEMs for readability, understandability, actionability, and accessibility.

Methods: Various lung cancer programs throughout the United States were contacted for their lung cancer surgery PEMs. The readability of the received materials was calculated using 6 readability tests. Four thoracic surgeon-advanced practice practitioner dyads scored the PEMs for understandability, actionability, and accessibility using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the Accessibility Assessment Tool, with the recommended minimum threshold of 70%. One-sample tests were performed to compare each parameter against its recommended threshold.

Results: Out of 34 institutions contacted, 18 (52.9%) provided PEMs. The average reading level of the PEMs ranged from 7th grade to 11th grade, significantly exceeding the recommended 6th grade health literacy threshold ( < .01). Although mean understandability (73.7 ± 13.2%) and actionability (70.2 ± 17.8%) scores were not significantly different from the minimum threshold, and the mean accessibility score (81.8 ± 13.5%) was significantly higher than the threshold ( < .05), there was wide variation in the scores. Most PEMs scored well in organization and writing but lacked other features that can enhance patient understanding, such as visual aids and summaries.

Conclusions: PEMs are written at reading levels that are too advanced for patients. Although PEMs scored well in understandability, actionability, and accessibility, analysis of individual items revealed the need for improvement, including the use of shorter sentences, more visual aids and summaries, and expansion of language translations.

References

Hadden K, Prince L, Schnaekel A, Couch C, Stephenson J, Wyrick T . Readability of Patient Education Materials in Hand Surgery and Health Literacy Best Practices for Improvement. J Hand Surg Am. 2016; 41(8):825-32. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhsa.2016.05.006. View

Tae J, Lee J, Hong S, Han J, Lee Y, Chung J . Impact of patient education with cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012; 76(4):804-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.026. View

Chen L, Orosa D, Ahn G, Putnam J, Layoun H, Saddiqui H . Are adult thoracic patient education materials designed with patients in mind?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024; 167(5):1654-1656.e5. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2023.12.029. View

Eguchi T, Bains S, Lee M, Tan K, Hristov B, Buitrago D . Impact of Increasing Age on Cause-Specific Mortality and Morbidity in Patients With Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Competing Risks Analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017; 35(3):281-290. PMC: 5456376. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.0834. View

Cheng B, Kim A, Tanna A . Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2022; 31(6):438-442. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002012. View

Goodman C, Lambert K . Scoping review of the preferences of older adults for patient education materials. Patient Educ Couns. 2022; 108:107591. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2022.107591. View

Shoemaker S, Wolf M, Brach C . Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014; 96(3):395-403. PMC: 5085258. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027. View

Vishnevetsky J, Burrows Walters C, Tan K . Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Couns. 2017; 101(3):490-496. PMC: 5839932. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.003. View

Scott B, Johnson A, Doval A, Tran B, Lee B . Readability and Understandability Analysis of Online Materials Related to Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2019; 54(2):111-117. DOI: 10.1177/1538574419879855. View

10.

Hartnett D, Philips A, Daniels A, Blankenhorn B . Readability of Online Foot and Ankle Surgery Patient Education Materials. Foot Ankle Spec. 2022; 18(1):9-18. DOI: 10.1177/19386400221116463. View

11.

Cetkin H, Tuna A . How Does Health Education Given to Lung Cancer Patients Before Thoracotomy Affect Pain, Anxiety, and Respiratory Functions?. J Cancer Educ. 2018; 34(5):966-972. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-018-1401-1. View

12.

Williams A, Muir K, Rosdahl J . Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016; 16:133. PMC: 4973096. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-016-0315-0. View

13.

Lopez Ramos C, Williams J, Bababekov Y, Chang D, Carter B, Jones P . Assessing the Understandability and Actionability of Online Neurosurgical Patient Education Materials. World Neurosurg. 2019; 130:e588-e597. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.166. View

14.

Hameed I, Amabile A, Candelario K, Khan S, Li E, Fereydooni S . Assessment of online information on robotic cardiac and thoracic surgery. J Robot Surg. 2024; 18(1):41. DOI: 10.1007/s11701-023-01794-6. View

15.

Hansberry D, Agarwal N, Shah R, Schmitt P, Baredes S, Setzen M . Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope. 2013; 124(2):405-12. DOI: 10.1002/lary.24261. View

16.

Gagne S, Fintelmann F, Flores E, McDermott S, Mendoza D, Petranovic M . Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3(1):e1920431. PMC: 7042868. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20431. View

17.

Berkman N, Sheridan S, Donahue K, Halpern D, Viera A, Crotty K . Health literacy interventions and outcomes: an updated systematic review. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2012; (199):1-941. PMC: 4781058. View

18.

Baltayiannis N, Chandrinos M, Anagnostopoulos D, Zarogoulidis P, Tsakiridis K, Mpakas A . Lung cancer surgery: an up to date. J Thorac Dis. 2013; 5 Suppl 4:S425-39. PMC: 3791495. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2072-1439.2013.09.17. View

19.

Riely G, Wood D, Ettinger D, Aisner D, Akerley W, Bauman J . Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer, Version 4.2024, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2024; 22(4):249-274. DOI: 10.6004/jnccn.2204.0023. View

20.

Mastroianni F, Chen Y, Vellar L, Cvejic E, Smith J, McCaffery K . Implementation of an organisation-wide health literacy approach to improve the understandability and actionability of patient information and education materials: A pre-post effectiveness study. Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 102(9):1656-1661. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.03.022. View