Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information: ENT UK Patient Information e-Leaflets versus Responses by a Generative Artificial Intelligence
9
Zitationen
9
Autoren
2024
Jahr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evolution of artificial intelligence has introduced new ways to disseminate health information, including natural language processing models like ChatGPT. However, the quality and readability of such digitally generated information remains understudied. This study is the first to compare the quality and readability of digitally generated health information against leaflets produced by professionals. METHODOLOGY: Patient information leaflets from five ENT UK leaflets and their corresponding ChatGPT responses were extracted from the Internet. Assessors with various degrees of medical knowledge evaluated the content using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool and readability tools including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Statistical analysis was performed to identify differences between leaflets, assessors, and sources of information. RESULTS: ENT UK leaflets were of moderate quality, scoring a median EQIP of 23. Statistically significant differences in overall EQIP score were identified between ENT UK leaflets, but ChatGPT responses were of uniform quality. Nonspecialist doctors rated the highest EQIP scores, while medical students scored the lowest. The mean readability of ENT UK leaflets was higher than ChatGPT responses. The information metrics of ENT UK leaflets were moderate and varied between topics. Equivalent ChatGPT information provided comparable content quality, but with reduced readability. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT patient information and professionally produced leaflets had comparable content, but large language model content required a higher reading age. With the increasing use of online health resources, this study highlights the need for a balanced approach that considers both the quality and readability of patient education materials.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations
2006 · 6.256 Zit.
Improving the Quality of Web Surveys: The Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES)
2004 · 6.244 Zit.
Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models
2012 · 5.937 Zit.
Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review
2011 · 5.307 Zit.
Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century
2000 · 5.015 Zit.
Autoren
Institutionen
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust(GB)
- University College London(GB)
- Royal Stoke University Hospital(GB)
- Royal Surrey County Hospital(GB)
- King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust(GB)
- Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust(GB)
- Barts Health NHS Trust(GB)
- Canterbury Christ Church University(GB)