Health Literacy and Radiation Therapy: a Current State Assessment of Patient Education Materials.

In order to mitigate low levels of health literacy among patients, there is need to evaluate patient education (PE) materials and to ensure that the information is readily accessible to patients. The quality and comprehensiveness of radiation therapy materials were evaluated at fourteen cancer centres. To assess quality, PE leaders independently conducted readability, actionability and understandability assessments of materials. To evaluate comprehensiveness, an assessment was conducted of the scope of symptoms covered in extant materials, and the modality they were produced in (e.g. pamphlet, video). A total of 555 PE materials were reviewed for comprehensiveness and modality and seventy underwent evaluation against health literacy best practice standards. Most materials (n = 64, 91%) had a reading grade level above the recommended grade 6 ([Formula: see text] = 9, range = 4-12). Under half (n = 34, 49%) scored at or above the 80% threshold for understandability ([Formula: see text] = 74%, 33-100%) and just over half (n = 36, 51%) scored at or above the 80% target for actionability ([Formula: see text] = 71%, 33-100%). Only two cancer centres (n = 2/14, 14%) had PE materials covering the breadth of symptoms related to radiation therapy and the vast majority of materials were pamphlets (89%). Findings indicate that most radiation therapy PE materials used in cancer centres do not meet health literacy best practices, and there is a disparity between cancer centres in the topics that are available to patients and family. This evaluation highlights the need to better incorporate health literacy best practices into the development of radiation therapy PE materials and strategies to improve accessibility of such health information.

The Cost of Patient Education Materials Development: Opportunities to Identify Value and Priorities.

The study aim was to evaluate the costs associated with developing and reviewing patient education materials (pamphlets) across Ontario cancer centers. While patient education often produces a positive return on investment, limited efforts have been dedicated to optimizing the personnel, time, and capital dedicated to this feat across healthcare systems. Patient education leaders at 14 cancer centers completed a survey measure, estimating the number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets and identifying the personnel involved in each procedural step. The time expended per center in each step was then combined with average salary data for the identified personnel to derive total cost estimates. Cancer centers spend on average $5672 (SD = $3180) developing (M = $4560, SD = $2620) and reviewing (M = $1112, SD = $654) one pamphlet. This cumulates to an average per annum spending of $65,401 (SD = $75,494) for pamphlet development and $19,819 (SD = $28,524) for annual pamphlet review at each cancer center. The cost and number of hours spent developing and reviewing pamphlets varied substantially between cancer centers. While the security of budgets for patient education varies across cancer centers, opportunities to optimize human capital and monetary resources should be considered. Results of the study can be used to advocate for sustainable investment into cancer education programs, improve the coordination of educational materials production and review, and ensure that resource quality and access are consistent across the province.

Development of a Professional Certification in Cancer Patient Education.

Patient educators come into the field from diverse professional backgrounds and often lack training in how to teach and develop patient education resources since no formal patient education professional certification program exists. A professional certification program for patient educators would further define the professional scope of practice and reduce variability in performance. The purpose of this study was to (1) determine the level of interest among Canadian cancer patient educators in a patient education professional certification program and (2) determine the competencies to be included in the professional certification program. A 12-item survey was designed by executive members of the Canadian Chapter of the Cancer Patient Education Network. The survey included a list of competencies associated with patient education, and a 4-point Likert scale ranging from "slightly important" to "very important" was used to determine the rank of each competency. The survey was sent to 53 patient educators across Canada. Ninety-two percent of the patient educators are interested in a professional certification program. Patient educators indicated that competencies related to developing patient resources, collaboration, plain language expertise, and health literacy were of most importance. Patient educators support the development of a patient education professional certification program and endorsed the competencies proposed. This information provides the foundation for the creation of a professional certification program for cancer patient educators.

Reinventing the wheel: The incidence and cost implication of duplication of effort in patient education materials development.

OBJECTIVE: The development of patient education (PE) materials is costly and resource-intensive, and no mechanisms exist for sharing materials across cancer centers/hospitals to limit duplicated effort. The aim of this study was to explore the incidence and cost implication of duplicated PE efforts. METHODS: PE leaders from all (14) cancer centers in Ontario, Canada, submitted their collections of systemic therapy PE materials. Materials were categorized by topic and were coded as duplicate (more than one other material exists on the same topic and there was significant content and/or textual overlap), adapted (material was adapted from an existing material) or unique (no other material addresses the topic). RESULTS: 304 materials were included and <50 % of materials had duplicate content (n = 166, 55 %), a small proportion were adapted (n = 27, 9%), and less than half were unique (n = 111, 37 %). The majority of materials were considered amenable to adaptation meaning that the content was not dependent on a specific institutional context (n = 283, 93 %). The opportunity for cost savings if duplication of effort could be avoided is approximately $800 K for systemic therapy materials produced in cancer centers. CONCLUSION: There is need to refine the process for developing PE materials. Creating mechanisms of sharing can help facilitate equal access to materials and can result in significant cost savings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Efforts are needed to better coordinate the development of PE materials among patient educators. Better coordination would allow patient education programs to focus on other important challenges.