ABSTRACT
Health literacy is defined as "the capacity to obtain, process, and understand basic medical information and services and the competence to use such information and services to enhance health." Much of the research regarding health literacy in orthopaedic surgery has focused on readability of educational materials. However, the role of health literacy in patient-reported outcomes is somewhat unknown. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the body of literature pertaining to health literacy and knee surgery outcomes. A literature search was performed using keywords and MeSH terms in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane. Articles written between 1990 and 2021 were evaluated for inclusion. The title and abstract of all studies returned in each database search were screened. In the case that these did not provide sufficient information, the full-text article was reviewed. The initial database search returned a total of 974 articles for review. Eight of these were duplicate results, and one article had been retracted after publication, leaving a total of 965 to be screened for inclusion. Ninety-six articles remained after screening titles and abstracts for relevance. After applying inclusion criteria, six articles remained and were included in this review. It is clear that health literacy impacts patient outcomes in health care and this review suggests that general and musculoskeletal health literacy affect patient expectations, outcomes, and satisfaction before and after knee surgery. However, the peer-reviewed literature on this topic is still deficient in terms of determining effective methods for addressing this barrier to optimal patient care. Research should focus on further elucidation of the relationships among health literacy, readability, and patient education for optimizing patient outcomes and satisfaction across orthopaedic subspecialties.
Subject(s)
Health Literacy , Orthopedic Procedures , Humans , Health Literacy/methods , ComprehensionABSTRACT
Purpose: To develop a standardized method to improve readability of orthopaedic patient education materials (PEMs) without diluting their critical content by reducing the use of complex words (≥3 syllables) and shortening sentence length to ≤15 words. Methods: OrthoInfo, a patient education website developed by the Academy of American Orthopedic Surgeons, was queried for PEMs relevant to the care of athletic injuries of the knee. Inclusion criteria were PEMs that were unique, pertained to topics of knee pathology in sports medicine, and written in a prose format. Exclusion criteria were information presented in video or slideshow format, or topics not pertaining to knee pathology in sports medicine. Readability of PEMs was evaluated using 7 unique readability formulas before and after applying a standardized method to improve readability while preserving critical content (reducing the use of ≥3 syllable words and ensuring sentence length is ≤15 words). Paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess the relationship between reading levels of the original PEMs and reading level of edited PEMs. Results: Reading levels differed significantly between the 22 original PEMs and edited PEMs across all 7 readability formulas (P < .01). Mean Flesch Kincaid Grade Level of original PEMs (9.8 ± 1.4) was significantly increased compared to that of edited PEMs (6.4 ± 1.1) (P = 1.9 × 10-13). 4.0% of original PEMs met National Institutes of Health recommendations of a sixth-grade reading level compared with 48.0% of modified PEMs. Conclusions: A standardized method that reduces the use of ≥3 syllable words and ensures sentence length is ≤15 words significantly reduces the reading-grade level of PEMs for sports-related knee injuries. Orthopaedic organizations and institutions should apply this simple standardized method when creating PEMs to enhance health literacy. Clinical Relevance: The readability of PEMs is important when communicating technical material to patients. While many studies have suggested strategies to improve the readability of PEMs, literature describing the benefit of these proposed changes is scarce. The information from this study details a simple standardized method to use when creating PEMs that may enhance health literacy and improve patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT
Background: Lateral scapular radiographs have been routinely included in the initial radiographic examination of both traumatic and nontraumatic shoulder conditions. With the advance of modern imaging modalities, the clinical utility of the lateral scapular view has become questionable. The purpose of the study was to assess the utilization of the lateral scapular view among the members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and to determine the clinical utility of the lateral scapular view in the initial evaluation of nontraumatic shoulder conditions. Methods: The study consisted of two parts. The first part involved an online survey of ASES members, which asked them 3 questions regarding their preference for radiographic evaluation of new patients with nontraumatic shoulder pain. The second part involved a clinical vignette-based survey, where 4 shoulder surgeons at our institution were given 50 clinical vignettes and asked to independently answer 4 questions regarding the most probable diagnosis, abnormal radiographic findings, further imaging studies, and treatment plan for each case. The survey was repeated twice; the first was given without a lateral scapular view, and the second given 4 weeks later with a lateral scapular view included. We obtained diagnostic accuracy and percent agreement of each surgeon over two surveys and intraobserver and interobserver reliability on each variable. Results: Of a total of 235 ASES members who responded to the online survey, 193 (82.1%) indicated their routine use of a lateral scapular view. The most common reason for obtaining the view was better characterization of acromion morphology (75.4%). The clinical vignette-based survey showed substantial intrarater reliability (κ > 0.6) of the 4 surgeons between the two surveys for the most probable diagnosis, abnormal x-ray findings, and further imaging studies, while the intrarater reliability for treatment plan was moderate (κ = 0.548). The mean diagnostic accuracy of the 4 surgeons was almost equal (74% vs. 75%) between the surveys. Overall, each surgeon's percent agreement across the 2 surveys was over 70%. None of the 4 surgeons recommended a lateral scapular view for further imaging during the first survey; each wanted either advanced imaging (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging) or none. Discussion: The addition of a lateral scapular radiograph in the presence of other orthogonal views does not appear to improve surgeons' diagnostic accuracy or affect their decision-making on the treatment plan in nontraumatic shoulder conditions. The clinical utility of the lateral scapular view may need to be reassessed in this setting.
