Abstract
Traditional hard copy information materials are still present in our cancer clinics. While their actual impact on patient care often goes un-assessed, it is important to understand their role in today’s electronic age where information can easily be obtained from various sources. It has remained the practice in our melanoma clinic to provide an information booklet to all of our new patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how useful this booklet was, as well as determine the current resources our patients use to gather cancer information. All patients referred to the clinic in the previous 3 years were pooled from our prospective, IRB-approved, melanoma sentinel node database. Of these 205 patients, a valid email address was listed for 147. A ten-question survey was emailed to all of these patients, who were not told ahead of time that their experience with the booklet would be studied. Seventy-seven of the 147 (52 %) patients polled responded. Fifty-eight (75 %) remembered receiving the booklet at their initial consultation. Forty-four (76 %) of those patients rated it as extremely or very useful, and no patients reported the booklet as not useful at all. Eighty-eight percent of respondents found the information to be clear and helpful. Sixty-four percent remembered the provider reviewing the material with them, and nearly all of these patients found that helpful. When asked to rank the importance of the various resources for obtaining cancer information, providers were ranked as most important, followed by the information booklet and Internet information sites. Internet blogs and friends and family were rated as the least important sources of information. Even in the current electronic age, our results indicate that information shared by providers, including the hard copy education booklet, was the most important source of information for our newly referred melanoma patients.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group (2014) United States Cancer Statistics: 1999 –2011 Incidence and Mortality Web-based Report. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Available at: www.cdc.gov/uscs Accessed 20 Aug 2015
Marbach TJ, Griffie J (2011) Patient preferences concerning treatment plans, survivorship care plans, education, and support services. Oncol Nurs Forum 38(3):335–342
Chelf JH, Agre P, Axelrod A, Cheney L, Cole DD, Conrad K et al (2001) Cancer-related patient education: an overview of the last decade of evaluation and research. Oncol Nurs Forum 28(7):1139–1147
Sim JA, Shin JS, Park SM, Chang YJ, Shin A, Noh DY et al (2015) Association between information provision and decisional conflict in cancer patients. Ann Oncol 26(9):1974–1980
McPherson CJ, Higginson IJ, Hearn J (2001) Effective methods of giving information in cancer: a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials. J Public Health Med 23(3):227–234
Vetto JT, Dubois PM, Vetto I (1996) The impact of distribution of a patient—education pamphlet in a multidisciplinary breast clinic. J Cancer Educ 11(6):148–152
Stewart DE, Lickrish GM, Sierra S, Parkin H (1993) The effect of educational brochures on knowledge and emotional distress in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Obstet Gynecol 81(2):280–282
Friedman AJ, Cosby R, Boyko S et al (2011) Effective teaching strategies and methods of delivery for patient education: a systematic review and practice guideline recommendations. J Cancer Educ 26(1):12–21
Beranova E, Sykes C (2007) A systematic review of computer-based softwares for educating patients with coronary heart disease. Patient Educ Couns 66(1):21–28
Bussey-Smith KL, Rossen RD (2007) A systematic review of randomized control trials evaluating the effectiveness of interactive computerized asthma patient education programs. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 98(6):507–516
Gysels M, Higginson IJ (2007) Interactive technologies and video- tapes for patient education in cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. Support Care Cancer 15(1):7–20
File T, Ryan C (2014) “Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013” American Community Survey Reports, ACS-28, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.census.gov/history/pdf/2013computeruse.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2015
Fox S, Duggan M. Health Online 2013, Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project, August 7-September 6, 2012 Survey. Available from: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed 22 August 2015
Stewart MA (1995) Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: a review. CMAJ 152(9):1423–1433
Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(10):2572–2580
National Institute of Health. How to Write Easy to Read Health Materials. National Library of Medicine Website. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed Aug. 28th 2015
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Winner, R. Davilene Carter Presidential Prize for Best Manuscript, Third Place, 2015 International Cancer Education Conference, Tucson, AZ, October 21–24, 2015
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schuitevoerder, D., Fortino, J. & Vetto, J.T. Hard Copy Durable Patient Cancer Education Materials: Do They Still Matter?. J Canc Educ 32, 487–490 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-0987-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-016-0987-4