Evaluating the Understandability and Actionability of Web-Based Education Materials for Patients Taking Non

Abstract

Background:

More patients are now taking high-risk medicines such as non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs). Hence, patient education materials need to be in an understandable format so that they can be empowered to act on their knowledge. Factors such as health literacy and the design of the medicine information material may influence the patient’s ability to understand and act on key information.

Method:

The PRISMA checklist was used to inform the study design. A structured search was conducted to obtain all freely accessible online educational resources designed for patients about the non–vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) during August 2018. Three search engines were used: Google, Yahoo! and Bing, using the search terms “NOAC” and “anticoagulant” combined with “patient/consumer information and patient/consumer resources.” We applied the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to evaluate web-based patient education materials in terms of understandability and actionability for patients taking NOACs.

Results:

Of the 35 materials included, the majority of the materials (n = 32, 91%) were rated as highly understandable (PEMAT score ≥70%), and more than three-quarters of all the materials (n = 29, 83%) were rated as poorly actionable (PEMAT score <70%). For understandability, the majority of materials neither provided a summary of the key points nor used visual aids for several items such as simple tables, illustrations, and photographs. For actionability, few materials provided a tangible tool, such as a checklist, to prompt the user into action (n = 4). Few used visual aids such as nonverbal cues to the written instructions (n = 4).

Conclusion:

To improve the understandability and actionability of most of the NOAC patient education materials, there is a need to include more summaries of information, visual aids, and tangible tools such as checklists. Further research is warranted where patients are involved in providing feedback on the design of medicine information materials for NOACs.

Keywords

patient education internet health communication search engines websites

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Steffel

Verhamme

Potpara

. The 2018 European Heart Rhythm Association Practical Guide on the use of non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2018;39(16):1330–1393.

Brieger

Amerena

Attia

. National Heart Foundation of Australia and Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian clinical guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation 2018. Med J Aust. 2018;209(10):1209–1266.

Wilson

Racine

Tekieli

Williams

. Literacy, readability and cultural barriers: critical factors to consider when educating older African Americans about anticoagulation therapy. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12(2):275–282.

Diamantouros

Bartle

Geerts

. Patient information about warfarin: an assessment of accuracy and readability. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):582–583.

Shoemaker

Wolf

Brach

. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Counsel. 2014;96(3):395–403.

Morony

McCaffery

Kirkendall

Jansen

Webster

. Health literacy demand of printed lifestyle patient information materials aimed at people with chronic kidney disease: are materials easy to understand and act on and do they use meaningful visual aids? J Health Commun. 2017;22(2):163–170.

Pandya

Bajorek

. Factors affecting patients’ perception on, and adherence to, anticoagulant therapy: anticipating the role of direct oral anticoagulants. Patient. 2017;10(2):163–185.

DeWalt

Berkman

Sheridan

Lohr

Pignone

. Literacy and health outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(12):1228–1239.

US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National action plan to improve health literacy. https://health.gov/communication/hlactionplan/pdf/Health_Literacy_Action_Plan.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed August 20, 2018.

10.

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Health literacy: taking action to improve safety and quality. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Health-Literacy-Taking-action-to-improve-safety-and-quality.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed July 25, 2018.

11.

Hesse

Nelson

Kreps

. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(22):2618–2624.

12.

Sless

Shrensky

. Writing about medicines for people: usability guidelines for consumer medicine information. http://www.asmi.com.au/media/46671/wamfp3_8.9.06.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed February 11, 2019.

13.

Wann

Curtis

Ellenbogen

. 2011 ACCF/AHA/HRS focused update on the management of patients with atrial fibrillation (update on dabigatran): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1330–1337.

14.

Demetriades

Alg

Hardwidge

. Are Internet sites providing evidence-based information for patients suffering with trigeminal neuralgia? Scott Med J. 2014;59(2):114–117.

15.

Morahan-Martin

. How Internet users find, evaluate, and use online health information: a cross-cultural review. CyberPsychol Behav. 2004;7(5):497–510.

16.

Moher

Schulz

Simera

Altman

. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):336–341.

17.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and User’s Guide (Version 1.0). AHRQ Publication. https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pemat_guide.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed August 25, 2018.

18.

Kaphingst

Kreuter

Casey

. Health Literacy INDEX: development, reliability, and validity of a new tool for evaluating the health literacy demands of health information materials. J Health Commun. 2012;17(supp 3):203–221.

19.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC Clear Communication Index user guide. https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/pdf/clear-communication-user-guide.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed August 25, 2018.

20.

Van Beusekom

Grootens-Wiegers

Bos

Guchelaar

H-J

van den Broek

. Low literacy and written drug information: information-seeking, leaflet evaluation and preferences, and roles for images. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38(6):1372–1379.

21.

Aker

Beck

Papay

. Consumers better understand and prefer simplified written drug information: an evaluation of 2 novel formats versus the current CMI. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2013;47(1):125–132.

22.

Morrow

Leirer

Andrassy

Hier

Menard

. The influence of list format and category headers on age differences in understanding medication instructions. Exp Aging Res. 1998;24(3):231–256.

23.

Koo

Krass

Aslani

. Consumer opinions on medicines information and factors affecting its use—an Australian experience. Int J Pharm Pract. 2002;10(2):107–114.

24.

Wolf

Bailey

Serper

. Comparative effectiveness of patient-centered strategies to improve FDA medication guides. Med Care. 2014;52(9):781–789.

25.

Yuan

H-CT

Raynor

Aslani

. Comparison of international regulations for written medicine information (WMI) on prescription medicines. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2018:1–12.

26.

Young

Tordoff

Smith

. “What do patients want?” Tailoring medicines information to meet patients’ needs. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2017;13(6):1186–1190.

27.

Young

Tordoff

Smith

. Regulatory agencies’ recommendations for medicine information leaflets: are they in line with research findings? Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2018;14(2):196–202.

28.

Anderson

Perrin

. Tech Adoption Climbs Among Older Adults. https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/05/17/tech-adoption-climbs-among-older-adults/. Published 2017. Accessed October 1, 2018.

29.

Clerehan

Buchbinder

Moodie

. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Educ Res. 2004;20(3):334–344.

Evaluating the Understandability and Actionability of Web-Based Education Materials for Patients Taking Non–vitamin K Oral Anticoagulants