The Diverse Evaluation Regarding Printed Health Education Materials between Breast Cancer Patients and Nurses by using Preliminary Structural Scale

Abstract

中文摘要 一份能讓人接近的平面衛教媒體應該是容易閱讀與了解的。許多研究指出，好的設計之平面衛教媒體應具備下列策略如：內容、語言、組織、編輯與印刷、插畫圖表與學習動機等。乳癌平面衛教媒體，大多出版內容針對早期診斷、限制殘障、復健或綜合以上三者來編輯。但是，極少相關研究針對病患與護理人員觀點，對平面媒體進行評價。本研究透過自編之結構式問卷進行調查，期能了解初步發展之平面衛教媒體評價問卷之適用性，及病患及護理人員對近五年乳癌平面衛教媒體之評價結果。 15位乳癌婦女，平均年齡為54.8± 5.7 （年）與15位平均年齡為30.7 ± 7.15（年）之腫瘤科或ㄧ般外科之護理人員為研究對象。運用編之結構式問卷分別對20份之平面衛教媒體進行評價，平面衛教媒體來源為衛生所，醫院，非營利組織基金會與網站。另外，在閱讀每份媒體後，依照一顆星至五顆星之標準給予總結性評價，最後，每位研究對象再依據個人需求，對平面媒體列出發展時應注意的優先順序。 病患組在20本平面媒體中的評分普遍高於護理人員組。病患組之評分結果趨向一致；相對地，護理人員間對於5本平面媒體評分不一致。再者，對於平面媒體之名次排序中，前三名媒體中僅其一兩組間名次相近，其餘序位有所不同；相對地，後三名之平面媒體序位在兩組間則趨向一致。這也顯示，病患和護理人員對於認定較差的平面煤體有相近的評價。在總結性評價部分，兩組對於平面媒體大多給予中上（3-4顆星）評價，僅護理人員對於數本媒體給予兩顆星。最後，在衛教媒體需求上，病患較注重內容與組織部份，但較不在意學習動機與圖表插畫。相反地，護理人員較注重內容與學習動機，較不在意組織與圖表插畫。本研究結果可提供未來媒體製作者在編製乳癌平面衛教媒體時之參考。Abstract Introduction: The effectiveness of the printed material is not only delivering knowledge but also reinforcing behavior. The information can be accessibility if readers can easily read and understand. Various studies have reported that a well-designed information material is characterized several categories, such as content, language, organization, layout, illustration, and learning motivation. For breast cancer, many printed materials have been produced including detection, disability limitation, rehabilitation, and comprehensive information. However, few study was investigated the patient’s and nurses` perspective of the marketed printed materials. The purpose of this study was to compare the result of evaluation of the printed materials with breast cancer between patients and nurses for developing a suitable health education material. Method: In this study, 15 women who aged 54.8 ± 5.7 with breast cancer and 15 nurses who aged 30.7 ± 7.15 have been working in General Surgery or Oncology. They used a Liker- scale to evaluate the 20 printed materials was published in five years by public health centers, hospitals, charitable organizations, and medical centers website. In addition, the summary evaluation was assessed with 1 star to 5 stars. Materials need was listed for participants` need. Result: the mean of evaluation of each material in patients was higher than nurses. The result of evaluation of Coefficient of concordance of all printed materials in patients were significant (P<.05, p<.001). In contrast, five out of 20 were incoherent in nurses. Otherwise, the two groups have the similar perspective with ranking the last one- third materials. It means that patients possessed the ability of assessment to discriminate the quality of the printed materials. On summary evaluation, most materials were given 3-4 stars in patients. Yet two of the materials which published on the medical centers website were 2 stars in nurses. Materials need in two group was little different.Patients preferred the category of content and organization, and none of them chosen motivation for priority need. On the other hand, nurses` main concern was content and motivation. For the last three materials need, layout and illustration were their choice in both of groups. The study has aimed to understand the reader viewpoint for professionals for developing the effectual printed material.