Search

Introduction/background It is not clear if online radiotherapy patient educational materials that are published by the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS) and the various provincial health authorities meet the appropriate readability levels. The aim of this study is to determine the readability of online Canadian radiotherapy patient educational materials. Methods The publicly available educational materials were acquired from the provincial health authorities' and the CCS's websites. Only English language materials were included. Documents which mainly contained instructions or were part of interactive modules were excluded. The materials were transferred to Microsoft Word documents and labelled by source and category. Editing was then performed and the readability scores were acquired for each document. Results A total of 67 documents were included and 4 were excluded. The overall mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level from all sources was 7.5 (range, 3.6–13.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.1–7.9), while the overall mean Flesch Reading Ease from all sources was 64.0 (range, 44.2–78.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 62.0–66.1). The mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores from all sources were higher than the grade 6 recommended reading level for patient educational materials. This difference was found to be statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) for Alberta, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Nova Scotia. Discussion/conclusions Overall, the readability levels of online Canadian radiotherapy patient educational materials exceed the recommended grade 6 readability for patient educational resources. It is hoped that the findings of this study would inform and guide the future development and distribution of materials that meet the appropriate readability standards.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a life-threatening condition that mandates prompt identification and management. The protean and atypical symptomatology of PE can mislead the physician and pose a diagnostic dilemma. Abdominal pain is one such rare symptom that is not commonly encountered in the clinical setting. With the limited availability of literature describing abdominal pain as a symptom of this acute disease, it is pivotal that healthcare workers are aware of this presentation. Herewith, we report a 36-year-old man with no co-morbidities who presented with abdominal pain and subsequent cardiac arrest. He was diagnosed and managed in the emergency department and made a complete recovery.

Objectives: To determine and explore the potential use of uHear as a screening test for determining hearing disability by evaluating its accuracy in a clinical setting and a soundproof booth when compared to the gold standard conventional audiometry. Methods: Seventy Sultan Qaboos University students above the age of 17 years who had normal hearing were recruited for the study. They underwent a hearing test using conventional audiometry in a soundproof room, a self-administered uHear evaluation in a side room resembling a clinic setting, and a self-administered uHear test in a soundproof booth. The mean pure tone average (PTA) of thresholds at 500, 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz for all the three test modalities was calculated, compared, and analyzed statistically. Results: There were 36 male and 34 female students in the study. The PTA with conventional audiometry ranged from 1 to 21 dB across left and right ears. The PTA using uHear in the side room for the same participants was 25 dB in the right ear and 28 dB in the left ear (3–54 dB across all ears). The PTA for uHear in the soundproof booth was 18 dB and 17 dB (1–43 dB) in the right and left ears, respectively. Twenty-three percent of participants were reported to have a mild hearing impairment (PTA > 25 dB) using the soundproof uHear test, and this number was 64% for the same test in the side room. For the same group, only 3% of participants were reported to have a moderate hearing impairment (PTA > 40 dB) using the uHear test in a soundproof booth, and 13% in the side room. Conclusion: uHear in any setting lacks specificity in the range of normal hearing and is highly unreliable in giving the exact hearing threshold in clinical settings. However, there is a potential for the use of uHear if it is used to rule out moderate hearing loss, even in a clinical setting, as exemplified by our study. This method needs standardization through further research.