Paper
Sunday, November 4, 2007

327
This presentation is part of : Cancer Care Strategies
A Comparison of Traditional and Easy-to-Read Chemotherapy Patient Information
Carole A. Pepa, PhD, RN1, Jane A. Walker, PhD, RN2, Peggy S. Gerard, DNSc, RN2, and Janet Landrum, MS, RN3. (1) College of Nursing, Valparaiso University, Valparaiso, IN, USA, (2) School of Nursing, Purdue University Calumet, Hammond, IN, USA, (3) National Council of State Boards of Nursing, Chicago, IL, USA
Learning Objective #1: identify the impact easy-to-read materials have on patient comprehension.
Learning Objective #2: identify one measure of health literacy that can be used by nurses in the clinical setting.

 

Background: Health literacy can influence a patient’s self-care ability as well as outcomes.  Understanding the effect of easy-to read materials on patient satisfaction and outcomes could assist nurses in designing more effective patient education materials. Purpose: The purpose of this collaborative, two group experimental study was to examine the impact of redesigned, easy-to-read materials on patient comprehension, satisfaction, and self care abilities. Theoretical Framework: Orem’s Self Care Deficit Theory was used to guide this study. Methods: Data were collected at baseline and longitudinally with follow up occurring at three days and one month after the first office visit for chemotherapy. Sample: The sample consisted of 29 participants recruited by nurses in an oncology practice over a period of 2.5 years. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Twenty six participants were able to complete the one month follow up. Results:  The experimental and control groups were similar with respect to age, gender, marital status, ethnicity, and health literacy as measured by the REALM.  Both the experimental and control groups were generally satisfied with the handouts they received.  Outcomes with respect to recall of potential side effects and interventions were similar.  There were no differences between the groups with respect to the use of handouts to obtain information.  More participants reported using the handouts for information at the time of the first follow up telephone call compared to the 30 day follow up. Conclusions: Written information may be more valuable to patients as soon as they receive it rather than later in their treatment trajectory. Although the REALM scores of both groups were high, those receiving the redesigned materials were equally satisfied with the information. This is an area that requires further study. Implications: Easy-to-read materials may meet the learning needs of patients at all levels of health literacy.