Journals / Turkish Journal of Urology / 2019 / Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3

Readability and understandability of andrology questionnaires

Pages
171–176
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Health providers can help patients to fill out forms to increase doctor-patient communication.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Medical questionnaires, which enable collection, comparison and analysis of appropriate data asa means of written communication between a patient and a doctor, must be easily readable, and understandable.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Two hundred and sixteenof the participants (66%) had a high school or college education.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Health providers can help patients to fill out forms to increase doctor-patient communication.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: Medical questionnaires, which enable collection, comparison and analysis of appropriate data asa means of written communication between a patient and a doctor, must be easily readable, and understandable. Here, we measure the readability and understandability of questionnaires used in andrology and examine the relationship between the educational status of the patients and the understandability of the forms.Material and methods: Seven questionnaires (SHIM, AIPE, IIEF, MSHQ-EjD, PEDT, NIH-CPSI andIPSS) used to diagnose andological diseases were selected from the European Association of Urologyguidelines. The number of syllables per word, the number of words in a sentence, and the average word andsentence lengths were calculated for each Turkish validated form. Readability scores were calculated, andcloset tests were used to measure the understandability of the texts.Results: Three hundred and twenty-seven male volunteers participated in the study. Two hundred and sixteenof the participants (66%) had a high school or college education. The readability level of the seven forms wasdetermined to be ''Difficult'' or ''Very Difficult,'' and at least a high school education level was required tounderstand the forms. As education level and monthly income increased, the understandability of the formsincreased; as the readability of the forms became more difficult, their understandability decreased (p<0.001).Conclusion: The readability levels of questionnaires used in andrology are well above the reading level ofTurkey. Health providers can help patients to fill out forms to increase doctor-patient communication.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALAY, H. A., ÇETİNKAYA, G., AGALAROV, S., ÖZBİR, S., ÇULHA, G., CANAT, L. (2019). Readability and understandability of andrology questionnaires. Turkish Journal of Urology, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3, 171–176. https://ajindex.com/articles/379541

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (7)

  1. DuBay WH. "The Principles of Readibility", Costa. Mesa, CA, 2004
  2. Institute of Medicine. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004
  3. The Nation's Health. Millions of Americans Suffer From Low Health Literacy. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2004
  4. Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Scott TL, Green DC, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA 1999;281:545-51. [CrossRef] 5. OECD Skills Studies, ''Skills Matter, Further Results from the Survey of Adult Skills''. Published on June 28, 2016
  5. Çetinkaya G, Uzun L. Identifying and Classifying The Readability Levels of The Turkish Texts. 2010. Available from: http://acikarsiv. ankara.edu.tr/browse/5875/tez.pdf 7. Pothier L, Day R, Harris C, Pothier DD. Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a Speech and Language Therapy Department. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008;43:712-22. [CrossRef] 8. Robert B, Lee JW. A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in the World, 1950-2010. J Develop Eco 2013;104:184-98. [CrossRef] 9. Breese P, Burman W. Readability of notice of privacy forms used by major health care institutions. JAMA 2005;293:1593-4
  6. Goldbort R. Readable writing by scientists and researchers. J Environ Health 2001;63:40-1
  7. Shaw A, Ibrahim S, Reid F, Ussher M, Rowlands G. Patients' perspectives of the doctor-patient relationship and information giving across a range of literacy levels. Patient Educ Couns 2008;75:114-20. [CrossRef] 12. Allvin R, Ehnfors M, Rawal N, Svensson E, Idvall E. Development of a questionnaire to measure patient-reported postoperative recovery: content validity and intra-patient reliability. J Eval Clin Pract 2009;15:411-9. [CrossRef] 13. DeWalt DA, Callahan LF, Hawk VH, Kimberly AB, Ashley H, Brach C, et al. AHRQ Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit, Second Edition. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality; 2010.