Günümüzde sağlık bakımı, hastaların bağımsızca öz bakımlarını sürdürebilmeleri için gerekli bilgi, beceri ve davranışların kazandırılmasına odaklanmaktadır. Sağlık profesyonelleri ise bu noktada en önemli yol gösterici ve eğitici kişilerdir. Hastaların eğitiminde önemli olan, verilen bilginin hastaya ulaşması ve anlaşılabilir olmasıdır. Hasta eğitiminde, bilgilerin kalıcılığını artırmak, eğitimi etkili bir şekilde gerçekleştirmek için materyal kullanımı büyük öneme sahiptir ve özellikle sık kullanılmakta olan basılı broşür ve kitapçık en kolay ulaşılabilen çeşitleridir. Ancak bu materyaller, sıklıkla fazla bilgi içermekte ve hastanın eğitim seviyesinin üstünde olmaktadır. Dolayısıyla bu materyaller sunulmadan önce hastanın eğitim seviyesine uygunluğu ile biçim, içerik gibi diğer niteliksel faktörleri değerlendirilmeli, eksik noktaları geliştirilerek hastaya uygun hâle getirilmelidirler. Bu amaçla, materyallerin değerlendirmesinde okunabilirlik formülleri ile geçerli ve güvenilir değerlendirme araçları kullanılmaktadır. Okunabilirlik formülleri, materyali nicel olarak değerlendirirken; eksik kalan diğer kısımlar materyal değerlendirme araçları ile giderilir. Bunlardan yalnız birini kullanmak, anlama etki eden diğer faktörleri göz ardı etmek demektir. Diğer önemli bir nokta, hatalı sonuç elde etmemek için kullanılan formül ve araçların materyalin diline uygun geçerli ve güvenilir olmasıdır. Ancak ülkemizde yapılan çalışmalar incelendiğinde bu kuralın göz ardı edildiği, çoğunlukla bunlardan yalnız birinin ya da Türkçe için uygun olmayan formül ve araçların kullanıldığı görülmüştür. Bu makalenin amacı, hasta eğitim materyallerinin değerlendirilmesinde kullanılan formül ve araçları tanımlamak, Türkçe için uygun olanların bir özetini sunmaktır. Bu 2 kavramı birlikte ele alan bir çalışma olmaması bakımından, literatüre katkı sağlayacağı düşünülmektedir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Eğitim; hasta eğitimi; hasta eğitim materyali; eğitimsel ölçüm; okunabilirlik
Nowadays, health care focuses on providing patients with the necessary knowledge, skills and behaviors so that they can maintain their self-care independently. At this point, health professionals are the most important people to guide and educate them. The important thing in patient education is to be taken by the patients of given informations truly and its' understandability. In patient education, the use of materials is very importance in order to increase the permanence of the information and to perform the education effectively, and it is especially easy-to-access brochures and booklets. However, these materials often contain too much information or are above the education level of the patient. Therefore, the suitability of the patient's level of education and other qualitative factors such as format, content should be evaluated before these materials are presented to the patients, and missing points should be developed and made suitable for the patient. For this purpose, readability formulas, valid and reliable assessment tools are used in the assessment of the materials. While the readability formulas assess the material quantitatively, the missing parts are eliminated with the material assessment tools. Using only one of these means ignoring other factors that affect meaning. Another important point is that the formulas and tools used to avoid erroneous results are valid and reliable in accordance with the language of the material. However, when the studies conducted in our country were examined, it was seen that this rule was ignored, mostly only one of them or using formulas or tools that were not suitable for Turkish. The purpose of this article is to describe the formulas and tools used in the evaluation of patient education materials and to provide a summary of those suitable for Turkish language. It is thought that it will contribute to the literature in terms of the lack of a study that addresses these 2 concepts together.
Keywords: Education; patient education; patient education materials; educational measurement; readability
- Bastable SB. Essentials of Patient Education. 2nd ed. Burlington: Jones & Barlett Learning; 2017. p.569.
- Griffin J, Mckenna K, Tooth L. Written health education materials: making them more effective. Journol of Australian Occupational Therapy. 2003;50:170-7. [Crossref]
- Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S, Hatton-Bauer J, Turnbull G. Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ. 2011;26(1):12-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Farzianpour F, Hosseini S. Accreditation of patient family education (PFE) in the teaching Hospitals of Tehran University of Medical Sciences from the nurses view. Pensee Journal. 2014;76(6):182-93.
- Oyetunde MO, Akinmeye AJ. Factors influencing practice of patient education among nurses at the University College Hospital, Ibadan. Open Jounal of Nursing. 2015;5(5):500-7. [Crossref]
- Birol L. [Nursing Process: Systematic Approaches in Nursing Care]. 6. Baskı. İzmir: Etki Matbaacılık; 2004. p.11-278.
- Özer C, Şahin EM, Dağdeviren N, Aktürk Z. [Patient education in primary care]. Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi (STED). 2002;11(1):11-4.
- Şenyuva E, Taşocak G. [Patient Education Activities Of Nurses and Patient Education Process]. İstanbul Üniversitesi Florence Nightingale Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Derg. 2007;15(59):100-6.
- Taşocak G. [Patient Education]. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi Basım ve Yayım Evi; 2003. p.1-105.
- Erbaş N. [Two important concepts in health services: patient education and nursing process]. Sürekli Tıp Eğitimi Dergisi (STED). 2018;27(5):358-64.
- Öztürk H, Çilingir D, Hintistan S. [Assessing through the patients of patient trainings that presented by nurses in medical and surgical clinics]. DEUHYO ED. 2011;4(4):153-8.
- Uzun Ö. [Preoperative patient education]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 2000;3(2):36-45.
- Elsevier Clinical Solutions. How to develop and use effective patient/consumer education materials. 2015.https://studyres.com /doc/ 14366182/how-to-develop-and-use-effective-patient-consumer?page=2
- Thompson DL. A framework to guide effective patient education. Primary Health Care. 2017;27(2):35-42. [Crossref]
- Farahani M, Mohammadi E, Ahmadi F, Mohammadi N. Factors influencing the patient education: a qualitative research. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2013;18(2):133-9. [PubMed]
- Gürbüz R. [The Effect of Teaching Materials Developed on Probability Concepts on Students' Conceptual Development]. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Buca Eğitim Fakültesi Derg. 2006;20:58-68.
- Falvo RD. Instructional Aids in Patient Teaching: Used or Abused. In: Effective Patient Education: A Guide to Increased Adherence. Fourth Edi. Sudbury, M: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC; 2011. p.411-39.
- Shieh C, Hoesi B. Printed health information materials: evaluation of readability and suitability. J Community Health Nurs. 2008;25(2):73-90. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Clayton LH. TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate material used in patient education. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(10):2229-38. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dreeben O. Basıc Concepts of Patient Education. In: Patient Education in Rehabilitation. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, LLC; 2010. p.1-8.
- Aygül S, Ulupınar S. [Patient's opinions about nurse's role of patient education]. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2012;15(1):1-9.
- Rawson KA, O'Neil R, Dunlosky J. Accurate monitoring leads to effective control and greater learning of patient education materials. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2011;17(3):288-302. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kang SJ, Lee MS. Assessing of the audiovisual patient educational materials on diabetes care with PEMAT. Public Health Nurs. 2019;36(3):379-87. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N. Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control. 2009;16(1):70-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):503-16. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dubay WH. The Principles of Readability. [Internet]. Impact Information. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information; 2004. p.1-72. Available from: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:The+Principles+of+Readability#1
- Kher A, Johnson S, Griffith R. Readability assessment of online patient education material on congestive heart failure. Adv Prev Med. 2017;2017:1-8. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- D'Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the world wide web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(7):807-12. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Dale E, Chall JS, Taylor P. A formula for predicting readability: instructions. Educ Res Bull. 1948;27(2):37-54.
- Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221-33. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kincaid JP, Fishburne Jr RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) For Navy Enlisted Personnel. Springfield, Nav Tech Train Command. 1975;1(1):1-39. [Crossref] [PMC]
- MC Laughlin GH. SMOG grading- a new readability formula. Journal of Reading. 1969;22:639-46.
- Ateşman E. [Türkçede okunabilirliğin ölçülmesi]. Language Journal. 1997;(58):71-4.
- Bezirci B, Yilmaz AE. [A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish]. DEÜ Mühendislik Fakültesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi. 2010;12(3):49-62.
- Temur T. [Okunabilirlik (readability) kavramı]. TÜBAR. 2003;13:169-80.
- Ebem E, Tutar MS, Yıldız M, Canıtez A, Kara Ö, Kozanhan B. [A readability assessment of intramuscular and intravenous injection informed consent forms]. Anatol Clin. 2019;24(2):132-6. [Crossref]
- Eryılmaz N, Külahçı O. [Readability levels of skin cancer patient information texts]. Dermotoz Dergisi. 2019;10(1):1-8.
- Aksoy N, Kozanhan B, Eryilmaz MA, Tutar MS. Assessment of the readability of patient education materials regarding breast cancer on websites. Fam Pract Palliat Care. 2019;4(1):25-30. [Crossref]
- Tolu S, Basım P. [A new perspective on readability and content assessment of patient information texts published on the internet sites on lymphedema. Journal of Current Researches on Health Sector. 2018;8(2):303-14. [Crossref]
- Solak M. [Readability of websites containing information about colorectal cancer]. Journal of Harran University Medical Faculty. 2019;16(3):509-13.
- Kozanhan B, Tutar MS. [Readibility of patient education texts prensented on the internet in the field of anesthesiology]. Turkiye Klinikleri J Anest Reanim. 2017;15(2):63-70. [Crossref]
- Çiftçi HK, Kozanhan B, Solak İ. [Evaluation of readability of Turkish websites on substance addiction]. Journal of Dependence. 2020;21(1):56-63.
- Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(3):395-403. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Vishnevetsky J, Walters CB, Tan KS. Interrater reliability of the patient education materials assessment tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(3):490-6. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. Suitability assessment of materials (SAM): Scoring sheet. Teaching Patients With Low Literacy Skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott; 1996. p.49-59.
- Bernier MJ. Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed education materials. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;29(3):283-99. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105-11. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Kaphingst KA, Kreuter MW, Casey C, Leme L, Thompson T, Cheng MR, et al. Health literacy INDEX: development, reliability, and validity of a new tool for evaluating the health literacy demands of health information materials. J Health Commun. 2012;17(Suppl 3):203-21. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Beaunoyer E, Arsenault M, Lomanowska AM, Guitton MJ. Understanding online health information: evaluation, tools, and strategies. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(2):183-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Kaya N, Kaya H. [A determining of the readability of written patient education materials designed by nurses]. Atatürk Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Dergisi. 2008;11(1):1-6.
.: İşlem Listesi