Assessing the Readability of English and Spanish Online Patient Educational Materials for Deep Venous Thrombosis

IntroductionOnline patient educational materials (OPEMs) help patients engage in their health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends OPEM be written at or below the 6th grade reading level. This study assessed the readability of deep venous thrombosis OPEM in English and Spanish.MethodsGoogle searches were conducted in English and Spanish using "deep venous thrombosis" and "trombosis venosa profunda," respectively. The top 25 patient-facing results were recorded for each, and categorized into source type (hospital, professional society, other). Readability of English OPEM was measured using several scales including the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and INFLESZ Scale. Readability was compared to the AMA recommendation, between languages, and across source types.ResultsOnly one (4%) Spanish OPEM was written at an easy level, compared to 7 (28%) English OPEM (P = 0.04). More English (28%) OPEM were easy to read compared to Spanish (4%), with a significant difference in reading difficulty breakdown between languages (P = 0.04). The average readability scores for English and Spanish OPEM across all scales were significantly greater than the recommended level (P < 0.01). Only four total articles (8%) met the AMA recommendation, with no significant difference between English and Spanish OPEM (P = 0.61).ConclusionsNearly all English and Spanish deep venous thrombosis OPEM analyzed were above the recommended reading level. English resources had overall easier readability compared to Spanish, which may represent a barrier to care. To limit health disparities, information should be presented at accessible reading levels

Access to Posthospitalization Acute Care Facilities is Associated with Payer Status for Open Abdominal Aortic Repair and Open Lower Extremity Revascularization in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BackgroundUninsured patients may not have access to postacute care facilities that play an important role in clinical recovery, and functional outcomes after vascular surgery. We sought to determine whether discharge disposition is associated with insurance status.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed data from the Vascular Quality Initiative® for patients who underwent open abdominal aortic repair, infrainguinal bypass, or suprainguinal bypass (SB) between January 2012 and July 2015. Mixed-effects logistic regression analysis with clustering at the surgeon and facility level was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals for discharge disposition to home, skilled nursing facility (SNF) or rehabilitation (Rehab) facility by payer status (Medicare, Medicaid, Commercial, Military/Veterans Affairs, Non-US Insurance, or Self-pay), with adjustment for patient, operative, and postoperative characteristics.ResultsThe study cohort comprised 18,478 procedures (open abdominal aortic repair = 2,817; infrainguinal bypass = 11,572; suprainguinal bypass = 4,089) after we excluded procedures with missing data and in-hospital deaths. Twenty-four percent of the cohort was discharged to an SNF or Rehab site. On univariate analysis, the odds ratio (OR) of discharge home was 4.38 (95% CI: 3.33-5.77) for self-pay as compared to Medicare. On mixed-effects analysis, the adjusted odds of discharge home for self-pay as compared to Medicare remained high (OR = 3.09; 95% CI: 2.23-4.26), after adjustment for age, gender, race/ethnicity, preoperative ambulatory status, number of comorbidities, case urgency, total operative time, presence of a postoperative complication, procedure type, and length of stay. Adjusted odds for discharge to SNF (OR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.15-0.46) and Rehab (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.35-0.72) were lowest for self-pay status.ConclusionsAccess to postacute care facilities is associated with insurance status. Self-pay (uninsured) patients are less likely to have access to discharge services that may aid clinical recovery, and functional outcomes after major vascular surgery

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments. METHODS: The Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370. FINDINGS: We enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2-11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75-1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58-1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70-1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·20]; p<0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50-0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38-0·67]; p<0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45-0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Recovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries. FUNDING: Imperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health