Health Literacy and Decisional Preferences in Hand Surgery

Optimizing Readability of Patient-Facing Hand Surgery Education Materials Using Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5

PURPOSE

To address patient health literacy, the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health recommend that readability of patient education materials should not exceed an eighth grade reading level. However, patient-facing materials often remain above the recommended average reading level. Current online calculators provide readability scores; however, they lack the ability to provide text-specific feedback, which may streamline the process of simplifying patient materials. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Chat Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 as a tool for optimizing patient-facing hand surgery education materials through reading level analysis and simplification.

METHODS

The readability of 18 patient-facing hand surgery education materials was compared by a traditional online calculator for reading level and ChatGPT 3.5. The original excerpts were then entered into ChatGPT 3.5 and simplified by the artificial intelligence tool. The simplified excerpts were scored by the same calculators.

RESULTS

The readability scores for the original excerpts from the online calculator and ChatGPT 3.5 were similar. The simplified excerpts' scores were lower than the originals, with a mean of 7.28, less than the maximum recommended 8.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ChatGPT 3.5 for the purpose of simplification and readability analysis of patient-facing hand surgery materials is efficient and may help facilitate the conveyance of important health information. ChatGPT 3.5 rendered readability scores comparable with traditional readability calculators, in addition to excerpt-specific feedback. It was also able to simplify materials to the recommended grade levels.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

By confirming ChatGPT3.5's ability to assess and simplify patient education materials, this study offers a practical solution for potentially improving patient comprehension, engagement, and health outcomes in clinical settings.

Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Congenital Hand Differences

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study is to assess the readability of online patient education materials (PEMs) for congenital hand differences.

METHODS

The top 10 online, English-language PEMs for 10 conditions (polydactyly, syndactyly, trigger finger/thumb, clinodactyly, camptodactyly, symbrachydactyly, thumb hypoplasia, radial dysplasia, reduction defect, and amniotic band syndrome) were compiled and categorized by source and country. Readability was assessed using 5 tools: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG). To account for the potential effect of each condition's name in the aforementioned formulas, the analysis was repeated after replacing the name with a monosyllabic word/s.

RESULTS

The mean readability scores of the 100 PEMs were FRES 56.3, where the target was ≥80, FKGL 8.8, GFI 11.5, CLI 10.9, and SMOG 8.6, and the median grade score was 9.8, where the target grade was ≤6.9. Following adjustment, all readability scores improved significantly (P < .001). Postadjustment scores were FRES 63.8, FKGL 7.8, GFI 10.7, CLI 9.1, and SMOG 8.0, and the median grade score was 8.6. Only 1 webpage met the target level using all tools. Two-sample t test for country of publication (the United States and the United Kingdom) demonstrated that PEMs originating from the United Kingdom were easier to read using the preadjustment CLI (P = .009) and median grade metrics (P = .048). A 1-way analysis of variance revealed no influence of condition or source on readability.

CONCLUSION

Most online PEMs for congenital hand differences are written above the recommended reading level of sixth grade, even when adjusted for the effect of the condition's name.

Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Aged ≥65 Years

PURPOSE

The ideal management of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in patients aged 65 years and older is debated. Acknowledging the evidence that both nonsurgical and surgical treatment yield similar outcomes one year after injury, a patient decision aid (PDA) could facilitate patient engagement in treatment decision-making. The purpose of this study was to develop a PDA to guide patients in the treatment of DRFs in patients ≥65 years of age.

METHODS

The DRF PDA was developed using an established decision sciences framework. The PDA included an overview of DRFs, treatment options (casting vs surgery), risk/benefits, and a values clarification section. During the development phase, hand surgeons and patients reviewed the PDA; then, semistructured interviews were performed with participants to elicit feedback.

RESULTS

Eleven patients and 11 hand surgeons participated in the study. All patients found the PDA useful and almost all stated it would make the treatment decision easier. Most patients believed that there was enough information in the PDA, but one desired more information about surgical risks. Almost all surgeons stated the PDA would be easy for patients to use and understand, and approximately half believed that it would help patients make a more informed decision. Most surgeons expressed that the PDA would complement their usual approach to counseling patients, but some noted it would involve changes to their workflow. Most participants believed the information presented was unbiased, but one patient thought it was biased toward surgery, whereas a few surgeons believed that it was biased toward nonsurgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients expressed that the PDA was informative, comprehensive, and easy to understand and would be helpful if they were deciding about DRF treatment. Surgeons believed that patients would find the PDA easy to use and understand, but some had concerns about incorporating it into their clinic workflow.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A decision aid for the treatment of DRFs in patients aged ≥65 years can be used to engage patients in the shared decision-making process.

Physician awareness of patients' preferred level of involvement in decision-making at the initial urogynecology visit: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Studies have shown up to a 40% discordance between patients' preferred roles in decision-making before and their perceived roles after their visit. This can negatively affect patients' experiences; interventions to minimize this discordance may significantly improve patient satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether physicians' awareness of patients' preferred involvement in decision-making before their initial urogynecology visit affects patients' perceived level of involvement after their visit.

STUDY DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial enrolled adult English-speaking women presenting for their initial visit at an academic urogynecology clinic from June 2022 to September 2022. Before the visit, participants completed the Control Preference Scale to determine the patient's preferred level of decision-making: active, collaborative, or passive. The participants were randomized to either the physician team being aware of their decision-making preference before the visit or usual care. The participants were blinded. After the visit, participants again completed a Control Preference Scale and the Patient Global Impression of Improvement, CollaboRATE, patient satisfaction, and health literacy questionnaires. Fisher exact, logistic regression, and generalized estimating equations were used. Based on a 21% difference in preferred and perceived discordance, we calculated the sample size to be 50 patients in each arm to achieve 80% power.

RESULTS

Women (n=100) with a mean age of 52.9 years (standard deviation=15.8) participated in the study. Most participants identified as White (73%) and non-Hispanic (70%). Before the visit, most women preferred an active role (61%) and few preferred a passive role (7%). There was no significant difference between the 2 cohorts in the discordance between their pre- and post-Control Preference Scale responses (27% vs 37%; P=.39) or whether their symptoms were much better or very much better following the visit (18% vs 37%; P=.06). However, when asked whether they were completely satisfied with the visit, those assigned to the physician awareness cohort reported higher satisfaction than those in the treatment as usual cohort (100% vs 90%; P=.03).

CONCLUSION

Although there was no significant decrease in discordance between the patient's desired and perceived level of decision-making following physician awareness, it had a significant effect on patient satisfaction. All patients whose physicians were aware of their preferences reported complete satisfaction with their visit. Although patient-centered care does not always entail meeting all of the patients' expectations, the mere understanding of their preferences in decision-making can lead to complete patient satisfaction.

Do Patients Want to Be Involved in Their Carpal Tunnel Surgery Decisions? A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Carpal tunnel syndrome requires multiple decisions during its management, including regarding preoperative studies, surgical technique, and postoperative wound management. Whether patients have varying preferences for the degree to which they share in decisions during different phases of care has not been explored. The goal of our study was to evaluate the degree to which patients want to be involved along the care pathway in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter study of patients undergoing carpal tunnel surgery at 5 academic medical centers. Patients received a 27-item questionnaire to rate their preferred level of involvement for decisions made during 3 phases of care for carpal tunnel surgery: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. Preferences for participation were quantified using the Control Preferences Scale. These questions were scored on a scale of 0 to 4, with patient-only decisions scoring 0, semiactive decisions scoring 1, equally collaborative decisions scoring 2, semipassive decisions scoring 3, and physician-only decisions scoring 4. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients completed the survey between November 2018 and April 2019. Overall, patients preferred semipassive decisions in all phases of care (median score, 3). Patients preferred equally collaborative decisions for preoperative decisions (median score, 2). Patients preferred a semipassive decision-making role for intraoperative and postoperative decisions (median score, 3), suggesting these did not need to be equally shared.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome prefer varying degrees of involvement in the decision-making process of their care and prefer a semipassive role in intraoperative and postoperative decisions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Strategies to engage patients to varying degrees for all decisions during the management of carpal tunnel syndrome, such as decision aids for preoperative surgical decisions and educational handouts for intraoperative decisions, may facilitate aligning decisions with patient preferences for shared decision-making.

Statistical Literacy in Hand and Upper-Extremity Patients

Purpose

Statistical literacy is the ability of a patient to apply basic statistical concepts to their health care. Understanding statistics is a critical component of shared decision making. The purpose of this investigation was to define levels of statistical literacy in an upper-extremity (UE) patient population. We aimed to determine if patient demographics would be associated with statistical literacy.

Methods

An electronic survey was administered to a consecutive series of UE patients at a single institution. We recorded baseline demographics, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores, the Berlin Numeracy Test (BNT), and General Health Numeracy Test. We also included a surgical risk question, which asked: "Approximately 3% of patients who get carpal tunnel surgery develop an infection. If 100 patients get this surgery, how many would you expect to develop an infection?" A covariate-controlled adjusted odds ratio reflecting the association between each statistical literacy outcome measure and patient characteristics was reported.

Results

A total 254 surveys were administered, 148 of which were completed and included. Fifty percent of respondents had a high-school education or less. For the BNT, 78% scored in the bottom quartile, and 52% incorrectly answered all questions. For the General Health Numeracy Test, 34% answered 0 or 1/6 questions correctly. For the surgical risk question, 24% of respondents answered incorrectly. Respondents who had a college or graduate degree had 2.62 times greater odds (95% confidence interval, 1.09-6.32) of achieving a BNT score in a higher quartile than patients who did not have a college or graduate degree.

Conclusions

Overall levels of statistical literacy are low for UE patients.

Clinical relevance

When engaging in management discussions and shared decision making, UE surgeons should assume low levels of statistical literacy. Consideration of alternative formats, such as frequencies, video-based materials, and pictographs, may be warranted when discussing outcomes and risks of surgical procedures.

Preference Elicitation and Treatment Decision-Making Among Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer: Randomized Controlled Trial Results of Healium

BACKGROUND

Elicitation of patients' preferences is an integral part of shared decision-making, the recommended approach for prostate cancer decision-making. Existing decision aids for this population often do not specifically focus on patients' preferences. Healium is a brief interactive web-based decision aid that aims to elicit patients' treatment preferences and is designed for a low health literate population.

OBJECTIVE

This study used a randomized controlled trial to evaluate whether Healium, designed to target preference elicitation, is as efficacious as Healing Choices, a comprehensive education and decision tool, in improving outcomes for decision-making and emotional quality of life.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who had not yet made a treatment decision were randomly assigned to the brief Healium intervention or Healing Choices, a decision aid previously developed by our group that serves as a virtual information center on prostate cancer diagnosis and treatment. Assessments were completed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 months post baseline, and included decisional outcomes (decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision, and preparation for decision-making), and emotional quality of life (anxiety/tension and depression), along with demographics, comorbidities, and health literacy.

RESULTS

A total of 327 individuals consented to participate in the study (171 were randomized to the Healium intervention arm and 156 were randomized to Healing Choices). The majority of the sample was non-Hispanic (272/282, 96%), White (239/314, 76%), married (251/320, 78.4%), and was on average 62.4 (SD 6.9) years old. Within both arms, there was a significant decrease in decisional conflict from baseline to 6 weeks postbaseline (Healium, P≤.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001), and a significant increase in satisfaction with one's decision from 6 weeks to 3 months (Healium, P=.04; Healing Choices, P=.01). Within both arms, anxiety/tension (Healium, P=.23; Healing Choices, P=.27) and depression (Healium, P=.001; Healing Choices, P≤.001) decreased from baseline to 6 weeks, but only in the case of depression was the decrease statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Healium, our brief decision aid focusing on treatment preference elicitation, is as successful in reducing decisional conflict as our previously tested comprehensive decision aid, Healing Choices, and has the added benefit of brevity, making it the ideal tool for integration into the physician consultation and electronic medical record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05800483; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05800483.

Patient motivators to use opioids for acute pain after emergency care

Introduction

Patients are stakeholders in their own pain management. Factors motivating individuals to seek or use opioids therapeutically for treatment of acute pain are not well characterized but could be targeted to reduce incident iatrogenic opioid use disorder (OUD). Emergency departments (EDs) commonly encounter patients in acute pain for whom decisions regarding opioid therapy are required. Decision-making is necessarily challenged in episodic, unscheduled care settings given time pressure, limited information, and lack of pre-existing patient provider relationship. Patients may decline to take prescribed opioids or conversely seek opioids from other providers or non-medical sources.

Methods

Using a framework analysis approach, we qualitatively analyzed transcripts from 29 patients after discharge from an ED visit for acute pain at a large, urban, academic hospital in the midwestern United States to describe motivating factors influencing patient decisions regarding opioid use for acute pain. A semi-structured interview guide framed participant discussion in either a focus group or interview transcribed and analyzed with conventional content analysis.

Results

Four major themes emerged from our analysis including a) pain management literacy, b) control preferences, c) risk tolerance, and d) cues to action.

Discussion

Our findings suggest targets for future intervention development and a framework to guide the engagement of patients as stakeholders in their own acute pain management.

Influences of decision preferences and health literacy on temporomandibular disorder treatment outcome

Background

Shared decision-making is defined as the process by which physicians and informed patients make a shared medical decision, taking into account the preferences and values of the patients. It is well known that shared decision-making practices improve both clinicians’ and patients’ satisfaction and lead to better treatment outcomes. The aim of the study was to assess associations between patients’ roles in decision-making, health literacy levels, and treatment outcomes of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs).

Methods

In total, 131 participants were enrolled. Participants underwent interview and physical examination at baseline and six months after TMD management. TMD was diagnosed according to Diagnostic Criteria/TMD criteria. Myofascial trigger points were bilaterally evaluated in the two masticatory muscles including the temporalis and masseter muscles. The roles that participants preferred to play or had perceived during decision-making and their health literacy levels were assessed using Control Preferences Scale and Newest Vital Sign, respectively.

Results

Participants who perceived themselves as occupying active roles in decision-making showed higher health literacy levels than those with passive perceived roles. Participants with appropriate health literacy showed higher perceived participation levels in decision-making than did those with limited health literacy. The extent of subjective symptomatic improvement after six months of treatment showed significant associations with perceived role in decision-making, despite lack of significant relationships between perceived role in decision-making and the extent of improvement of objective parameters.

Conclusion

Active participation of patients in decision-making improves the satisfaction but limited health literacy constitutes barriers to effective patient engagement during TMD management.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-022-02420-x.

The relationship between musculoskeletal health literacy and upper extremity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the setting of atraumatic shoulder pain

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly utilized to assess patient-derived orthopaedic health status and function. The prevalence of limited musculoskeletal health literacy (MHL) has been demonstrated to be high within the orthopaedic literature. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between MHL and upper extremity-specific PROMs and to determine which patient- and symptom-related factors affect baseline PROMs in patients with atraumatic shoulder pain.

HYPOTHESIS

Patients with limited MHL would demonstrate lower median scores on baseline PROMs compared with those with adequate MHL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

New patients with atraumatic shoulder pain presenting to an academic practice were administered the Literacy in Musculoskeletal Problems (LiMP), in addition to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) questionnaires. A detailed physical exam and history was performed by a fellowship-trained shoulder surgeon. Demographic patient data, in addition to prior imaging and orthopaedic treatment, was tabulated. The association between demographics, pain-related variables, and MHL with the ASES, SANE, and QuickDASH scores were examined using Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous variables and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests for categorical variables. Non-parametric analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to examine the independent association of predictor variables with PROMs.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients met the inclusion criteria and were enrolled. The mean age was 58.8±12.6years (range: 24-93) with 162 (37%) being men. Overall, 172 patients (39.2%) attained a college degree or higher and 183 (41.7%) were currently employed. MHL was significantly associated with ASES (p=0.03), but not with the QuickDASH (p=0.75) or SANE score (p=0.16). Similarly, age, having been in the medical profession or having previously visited an orthopaedist were not associated with PROMs, while employment status correlated to the SANE score (p=0.002). Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain level demonstrated varying strengths of association with each of the scores [ASES (r=-0.729, p<0.001), QuickDASH (r=0.557, p<0.001), and SANE (r=-0.430, p<0.001)]. MHL demonstrated no association with initial patient-derived treatment selection.

DISCUSSION

The SANE and QuickDASH may be administered to patients presenting for atraumatic shoulder pain in the outpatient setting regardless of MHL. Further research should be focused on the utility of the ASES instrument amongst patients with lower educational levels and/or limited MHL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; diagnostic.

Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review

Health literacy of plastic surgery patients may affect surgical decision-making and perioperative outcomes. In addition to consulting a plastic surgeon, patients often refer to online-based resources to learn about surgical options. The aim of this scoping review was to identify evidence detailing the state of health literacy of plastic surgery patients and available resources to highlight areas of improvement for clinical practice and future research.