↓ Skip to main content

Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Readability of patient information and consent documents in rheumatological studies
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12910-016-0126-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bente Hamnes, Yvonne van Eijk-Hustings, Jette Primdahl

Abstract

Before participation in medical research an informed consent must be obtained. This study investigates whether the readability of patient information and consent documents (PICDs) corresponds to the average educational level of participants in rheumatological studies in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway. 24 PICDs from studies were collected and readability was assessed independently using the Gunning's Fog Index (FOG) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) grading. The mean score for the FOG and SMOG grades were 14.2 (9.0-19.0) and 14.2 (12-17) respectively. The mean FOG and SMOG grades were 12.7 and 13.3 in the Dutch studies, 15.0 and 14.9 in the Danish studies, and 14.6 and 14.3 in the Norwegian studies, respectively. Out of the 2865 participants, more than 57 % had a lower educational level than the highest readability score calculated in the individual study. As the readability level of the PICDs did not match the participants' educational level, consent may not have been valid, as the participants may have had a limited understanding of what they agreed to participate in. There should be more focus on the readability of PICDs. National guidelines for how to write clear and unambiguous PICDs in simple and easily understandable language could increase the focus on the readability of PICD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 10 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Computer Science 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 July 2016.
All research outputs
#14,563,539
of 23,323,574 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#770
of 1,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,424
of 358,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#16
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,323,574 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,011 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 358,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.