Scholarlink

<p>Keloids are chronic fibroproliferative scars that may impair function, cause disfigurement, and affect quality of life. Online patient education materials (PEMs) are widely accessed but their readability, quality, and actionability remain underexplored. This study evaluated publicly available PEMs on keloid treatment for readability, quality, and actionability, and compared results by authorship and source type. A Google search identified 24 eligible PEMs. Readability was assessed with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease, quality with DISCERN and JAMA benchmarks, and actionability with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Interrater reliability was high. Mean readability exceeded AMA/NIH recommendations, with limited understandability and actionability. DISCERN scores indicated poor-to-fair quality, and JAMA benchmarks reflected moderate transparency. No significant differences were observed between physician- versus non-physician authorship or academic versus commercial sources. Online PEMs on keloid treatment frequently fail to meet recommended readability and quality standards, underscoring the need for clearer, more actionable patient resources.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Patient education in the digital age: assessing the readability, quality, and actionability of keloid information online

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月11日

查看全文
  • Michael C. Povelaitis,
  • Ruchi S. Raval,
  • Robert J. Vanaria,
  • Elizabeth Vydra,
  • Claudia Green,
  • Jeffrey Nguyen,
  • Adriana Ros

摘要

Keloids are chronic fibroproliferative scars that may impair function, cause disfigurement, and affect quality of life. Online patient education materials (PEMs) are widely accessed but their readability, quality, and actionability remain underexplored. This study evaluated publicly available PEMs on keloid treatment for readability, quality, and actionability, and compared results by authorship and source type. A Google search identified 24 eligible PEMs. Readability was assessed with Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease, quality with DISCERN and JAMA benchmarks, and actionability with the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Interrater reliability was high. Mean readability exceeded AMA/NIH recommendations, with limited understandability and actionability. DISCERN scores indicated poor-to-fair quality, and JAMA benchmarks reflected moderate transparency. No significant differences were observed between physician- versus non-physician authorship or academic versus commercial sources. Online PEMs on keloid treatment frequently fail to meet recommended readability and quality standards, underscoring the need for clearer, more actionable patient resources.