+ Site Statistics
References:
52,572,879
Abstracts:
28,705,754
PMIDs:
27,750,366
DOIs:
25,464,004
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Comprehensibility and readability of patient self-administered opioid assessment screening tools



Comprehensibility and readability of patient self-administered opioid assessment screening tools



Journal of Opioid Management 3(6): 338-344



The aims of this study were to evaluate the cognitive complexity and reading demands of patient self-administered Opioid Assessment Screening Tools (OASTs) for use in adults with nonmalignant pain. Using comprehensive search strategies, we identified english-language OASTs with established validity and reliability for inclusion in our study. Cognitive complexity of individual OAST statements or questions were assessed using three techniques (number of items, number of words, and linguistic problems), whereas readability was measured using the Flesch-Kinkaid formula. Four (n=4) were identified and included in our review: Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM), Pain Medication Questionnaire (PMQ), Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patient with Pain, and Screening Tool for Addiction Risk (STAR). Number of total OAST statements or questions ranged from a low of 14 (STAR) to a high of 26 (PMQ), whereas number of words (length) per statement or question averaged from a low of 10.2 +/- 1.1 (STAR) to a high of 15.9 +/- 3.8 (PMQ). The STAR (1.3 +/- 1.1) had the fewest number of linguistic problems per statement or question, whereas the PMQ (3.0 +/- 1.4) had the most linguistic problems per statement or question. Although, readability of OASTs ranged from approximately sixth (STAR) to eighth (COMM, PMQ) grade, there was notable variation in readability across individual statements or questions. Our study demonstrates that formatting characteristics, including linguistic problems, and high readability of several OAST statements or questions may hinder many patients' ability to accurately complete and comprehend OASTs independently.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 052269488

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 18290586


Related references

Assessment of the readability and comprehensibility of a CFC-transition brochure. Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology 84(2): 211-214, 2000

Readability and comprehensibility of patient education material in hand-related web sites. Journal of Hand Surgery 34(7): 1308-1315, 2010

Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Education Material in Hand-Related Web Sites. Yearbook of Hand and Upper Limb Surgery 2010: 238-239, 2010

Readability, suitability and comprehensibility in patient education materials for Swedish patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery: a mixed method design. Patient Education and Counseling 94(2): 202-209, 2015

Readability Assessment of Online Patient-Oriented Information Regarding Noninvasive Prenatal Screening (Nips) [6H]. Obstetrics & Gynecology 127: 67S-68S, 2016

Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 80(2): 284-290, 2015

Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening. Academic Radiology 22(3): 290-295, 2015

Readability and comprehensibility of the "exercise lite" brochure. Perceptual and Motor Skills 80(2): 399-402, 1995

A critical review of readability and comprehensibility tests. Journal of Tourism Studies 9(2): 49-61, 1998

Readability and comprehensibility of over-the-counter medication labels. Renal Failure 36(3): 473-477, 2014

A systematic review of the reliability of screening for cognitive impairment in older adults by use of standardised assessment tools administered via the telephone. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 16(8): 422-428, 2011

Users' preferences and perceptions of the comprehensibility and readability of medication labels. Plos One 14(2): E0212173, 2019

Readability and comprehensibility of informed consent forms for clinical trials. Perspectives in Clinical Research 1(3): 98-100, 2011

An abbreviation of the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory with increased comprehensibility and readability. Journal of Clinical Psychology 36(1): 180-186, 1980

Consent forms, readability, and comprehension: the need for new assessment tools. Law, Medicine and Health Care 13(2): 68-74, 1985