Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Exp Dermatol ; 47(8): 1581-1582, 2022 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35357032

RESUMO

We performed a prospective analysis of Breslow thickness in melanoma before the COVID-19 pandemic and after. It shows that there is a statistically significant increase in melanoma thickness, and ultimately melanoma staging, since the pandemic began.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Melanoma , Neoplasias Cutâneas , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Controle de Doenças Transmissíveis , Humanos , Melanoma/epidemiologia , Melanoma/patologia , Estadiamento de Neoplasias , Pandemias , Prognóstico , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Cutâneas/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Cutâneas/patologia , Reino Unido/epidemiologia
2.
Dermatol Surg ; 42(6): 757-63, 2016 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27176870

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient information leaflets (PILs) provide important guidance to patients after skin surgery. Readability is a method of evaluating information for text comprehension. The recommended level for PIL readability is US grade ≤6. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the readability of public English dermatological postoperative PILs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All dermatology departments in England were requested to provide their postoperative PILs. Patient information leaflets were evaluated using Readability Studio (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH). Two preselected parameters were also noted: whether the PIL was doctor or nurse-written, and whether the PIL was Information Standard hallmarked. RESULTS: Eighty-five of one hundred thirty (65.4%) of PILs were evaluated. Only 29.4% of the PILs were grade level ≤6 with Flesch-Kincaid. The mean readability levels were 7.8 for Flesch-Kincaid, 67 for Flesch reading ease, 10.5 for Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), 9.4 for Gunning-Fog, 8 for Fry, and 9.8 for FORCAST. No instruments demonstrated a significant difference between doctor (6) and nurse-written (7) PILs. Two instruments found that the 3 Information Standard hallmarked PILs had a higher (harder) readability than ordinary PILs (n = 82) (Gunning-Fog, p = .029*; SMOG p = .049*). CONCLUSION: Most English postoperative dermatological PILs' readability levels exceed recommendations (US grade ≤6). Departmental PILs should be reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensible to their patients.


Assuntos
Compreensão , Alfabetização , Folhetos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Leitura , Dermatopatias/cirurgia , Inglaterra , Humanos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA