Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
1.
Clin Exp Dermatol ; 47(4): 684-691, 2022 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34854104

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) develops and produces patient information leaflets (PILs) for British clinicians and the general public, and its website provides access to all the PILs. Health literacy across the UK remains variable. Readability instruments assess the comprehensibility of text, predominately using a composite of sentence length and/or word-syllable number. Instruments usually report text readability categorized by United States (US) grades; ideally, health literature should be rated at US grade ≤ 6 (UK Year 7; age 11-12 years). METHODS: In collaboration with the BAD, PILs on the BAD website (n = 203) were downloaded for readability assessment. PILs were processed prior to analysis using Readability Studio software (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH, USA). Established readability metrics were used: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning fog index (GFI), Fry, FORCAST and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). RESULTS: The mean (95% CI) US grade levels for all BAD PILs were: 9.8 (9.7-10.0) for FK, 12.1 (12.0-12.3) for SMOG, 11.8 (11.6-11.9) for GFI, 11.5 (11.1-11.8) for Fry and 10.7 (10.6-10.8) for FORCAST. For FRE, the level is reported from a normal spectrum of 0-100, and was found to be 52.2 (95% CI 34.0-78.0) in this study. In the UK context, the mean readability levels of the BAD PILs were rated as Year 10 (age 14-15 years) for FK and Year 13 (aged 17-18 years) for SMOG. For FK, outputs, only 1.0% of PILs (2 of 203) were the recommended US grade ≤ 6 according to FK, and for SMOG rating, none was rated at this level. DISCUSSION: The majority of BAD PILs have been written at a level that will be challenging for some patients to read. Reducing sentence length and aiming for shorter words will improve accessibility.


Assuntos
Compreensão , Letramento em Saúde , Adolescente , Criança , Dermatologistas , Humanos , Internet , Publicações , Leitura , Estados Unidos , Redação
2.
Clin Exp Dermatol ; 45(8): 1040-1043, 2020 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32407594

RESUMO

Psoriasis remains one of the commonest conditions seen in dermatological practice, and its treatment is one of the greatest cost burdens for the UK National Health Service. Treatment of psoriasis is complex, with numerous overlapping lines and therapies used in combination. This complexity reflects the underlying pathophysiology of the disease as well as the heterogeneous population that it affects. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance for the treatment of psoriasis has been available since 2013, and has been the subject of three national audits conducted by the British Association of Dermatologists. This report synthesizes the results of the most recent of those exercises and places it in the context of the NICE guidance and previous audits. It clearly shows the significant burden of disease, issues with provision of services and long waiting times and the marked shift in therapies towards targeted biologic therapies.


Assuntos
Terapia Biológica/métodos , Psoríase/diagnóstico , Psoríase/terapia , Medicina Estatal/economia , Administração Tópica , Terapia Biológica/estatística & dados numéricos , Terapia Combinada/métodos , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Dermatologistas/organização & administração , Humanos , Auditoria Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Fototerapia/métodos , Fototerapia/estatística & dados numéricos , Psoríase/fisiopatologia , Psoríase/psicologia , Sistemas de Apoio Psicossocial , Medicina Estatal/organização & administração , Reino Unido/epidemiologia , Listas de Espera
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA