小兒科書面衛教教材適用性評估

Suitability Assessment of Pediatric Written Healthcare Educational Materials

張美娟(Mei- Chuan Chang)；鄭雅君(Ya-Chun Cheng)；呂基燕(Ji-Yan Lyu)；章淑娟(Shu-Chuan Chang)

適讀性 ； 適用性 ； 書面衛教教材 ； readability ； suitability ； written health educational material

志為護理-慈濟護理雜誌

14卷4期（2015 / 08 / 01）

58 - 68

繁體中文

背景：書面衛教教材是醫護人員進行照護指導常用的工具，需病人或照顧者看得懂內容才能有效地傳遞照護訊息。目的：進行小兒科書面衛教教材的適用性分析。方法：以教材適用性評估（Suitability Assessment of Materials, SAM）中文版以及中文文章適讀性線上分析系統進行衛教教材的文本分析以及30位小兒照顧者進行生澀用語及難字分析。共9篇教材。結果：以SAM分析3篇為不適用的教材。教材缺乏指導內容的複習與回顧，缺乏版面編排與學習刺激的應用。適讀年級分布於6-8年級，只有一篇低於6年級。教材專有名詞與生澀字詞使用多，最高達36個，且包含英文專有名詞。結論／實務應用：衛教教材適用性欠佳，生澀用語過多。提供易讀易理解的衛教訊息是醫護人員重要的職責。加強醫護人員適用性教材的設計能力是必要的。

Written health educational materials (WHEMs) are the tools that healthcare professionals use frequently to teach patients and caregivers. They become effective when patients and caregivers could read and understand the contents. The study aimed to analyze the suitability of pediatric WHEMs. We conducted a text analysis using the SAM Chinese version to assess the suitability of pediatric WHEMs. Thirty caregivers of hospitalized children analyzed the medical jargons or terms. A total of 9 WHEMs were analyzed. Three sets of teaching materials, according to the criteria of SAM Chinese version, were deemed unsuitable. These materials lacked in content review and revision, as well as page layout and the application of learning stimulation. The readability of these materials ranged from 6^(th) to 8^(th) grade, with only one for 6th grade and below. Jargons and obscure words were abundant in these materials, including English jargons, with as high as 36 appearances. Some WHEMs were lacking in suitability, and excessive in medical jargons. Providing readable and understandable nursing information is an important responsibility for pediatric health care professionals. It is essential to enhance the designing skills of nursing professionals in developing suitable WHEMs.

1. Chang, M. C.,Chen, Y. C.,Gau, B. S.,Tzeng, Y. F.(2014).Translation and Validation of an Instrument for Measuring the Suitability of Health Educational Materials in Taiwan: Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM).The Journal of Nursing Research,23(1),61-68.
   連結：
2. Alaridge, M. D.(2004).Writing and designing readable patient education materials.Nephrology Nursing Journal,31(4),373-377.
3. Arora, A.,Lam, A. S.,Karami, Z.,Do, L. G.,Harris, M. F.(2014).How readable are Australian paediatric oral health education materials?.BioMed Central oral health,14(1),111.
4. Baker, D. W.(2006).The meaning and the measure of health literacy.Journal of General Internal Medicine,21,878-883.
5. Brach, C.,Dreyer, B.,Schyve, P.,Hernandez, L. M.,Baur, C.,Lemerise, A. J.,Parker, R.(2012).Attributes of a health literate organization.Washington , DC:Institute of Medicine.
6. D’Alessandro, D. M.,Kingsley, P.,Johnson West, J.(2001).The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web.Archives in Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine,155,807-812.
7. Doak, C. C.,Doak, L.,Root, J. H.(1996).Teaching patient with low literacy skills.Philadelphia:J. B. Lippincott Company.
8. Fry, E.(2002).Readability versus leveling.Reading Teacher,56,286-292.
9. HLS-EU Consortium. (2012) . Comparative report of health literacy in eight EU member states. The European Health Literacy survey HLSEU, Retrieved from http://www.health-literacy.EU.
10. Houts, P. S.,Doak, C. C.,Doak, L. G.,Loscalzo, M. J.(2006).The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence.Patient Education and Counseling,61(2),173-190.
11. Mayer, G. G.,Villaire, M.(2007).Health literacy in primary care.New York:Springer publishing company.
12. Nielsen-Bohlman, L.,Panzar, A. M.,Kindig, D. A.(2004).Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion.Washington, DC:National Academies Press.
13. Passche-Orlow, M. K.,Parker, R. M.,Gazmararian, J. A.,Nielsen-Bohlman, L.T.,Rudd, R. R.(2005).The prevalence of limited health literacy.Journal of General Internal Medicine,20(2),175-184.
14. Patel, C. R.,Cherla, D. V.,Sanghvi, S.,Baredes, S.,Eloy, J. A.(2013).Readability assessment of online thyroid surgery patient education materials.Head & neck,35(10),1421-1425.
15. Rhee, R. L.,Von Feldt, J. M.,Schumacher, H. R.,Merkel, P. A.(2014).Readability and suitability assessment of patient education materials in rheumatic disease.Arthritis Care & Research,65(10),1702-1706.
16. Rudd, R. R.,Kirsch, I.,Yamamoto, K.(2004).Policy Information ReportPolicy Information Report,Princeton, NJ:Education Testing Service.
17. Sand-Jecklin, K.(2007).The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials.Journal of Community Health Nursing,24(2),119-129.
18. Svider, P. F.,Agarwal, N.,Choudhry, O. J.,Hajart, A. F.,Baredes, S.,Liu, J. K.,Eloy, J. A.(2013).Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments.American Journal of Otolaryngology,34(1),31-35.
19. Tian, C.,Champlin, S.,Mackert, M.,Lazard, A.,Agrawal, D.(2014).Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening.Gastrointestinal endoscopy,80(2),284-290.
20. Weintraub, D.,Maliski, S. L.,Fink, A.,Choe, S.,Litwin, M. S.(2004).Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials.Patient Education and Counseling,55,275-280.
21. Weiss, B. D.,Coyne, C.(1997).Communicating with patients who cannot read.New England Journal of Medicine,337(4),272-273.
22. 荊溪昱(1994)。,台北市:行政院國家科學委員會。
23. 荊溪昱(1993)。教材難易的檢驗。現代教育，8(1)，123-129。
24. 荊溪昱,趙世範,翁凌志(2007)。中文文章線上分析系統之發展研究。科技教育課程改革與發展學術研討會論文集
25. 國立臺灣師範大學(2014) ．適性閱讀平台REAT．取自http://www.chinesereadability.net/main_profile/CH/react.html

1. 戴千淑,鄭朝惠,劉子菁,黃千恩,梁穎,林少瑜(2020)。提升腦中風病人急性後期照護下轉率。榮總護理，37(4)，360-368。
2. 黃怡蒨,張美娟,王淑貞,王英偉(2017)。以衛教教材評估工具（PEMAT）評估安寧緩和視聽教材之理解度與可行度。安寧療護雜誌，22(1)，44-53。
3. 賴右真、陳琪玲、邱燕甘、林怡攸、王美瑩(2018)。提升兒科病房癲癇病童腦波影像儲存之完整率。護理雜誌，65(4)，102-108。
4. 顏雅卉,陳淑雯,范姜玉珍(2019)。護理指導資訊化輔助降低導尿管及非導管之泌尿道感染率之改善專案。護理雜誌，66(2)，77-84。
5. 張家翎,邱銘心(2020)。How Much Do Pregnant Women Know? An Exploratory Study on the Readability of Frequently-used Nutrition Terms。圖書資訊學刊，18(2)，139-165。
6. 鄭家榛,黃巧菱,郭和昌,邱燕甘,林瓊君,林怡攸,王敏惠(2020)。川崎症住院病童友善醫療照護流程之改善專案。健康科技期刊，7(1)，12-23。
7. (2023)。老人健康檢查族群衛教素材適用性評估——以台北市某醫學中心為例。台灣家庭醫學雜誌，33(2)，79-98。