Skip to main content

Table 2 Results of the subgroup analysis for surgical and medical discharge letters, comparison between CDL and PFDL. Section 1 was demographic data and is not shown, ES = effect size (Cohen’s d), * = small effect (d ≥ 0.2), ** = moderate effect (d ≥ 0.5), *** = large effect (d ≥ 0.8). Values are given in medians (IQR), significant p-values in bold

From: Design and preliminary evaluation of a newly designed patient-friendly discharge letter – a randomized, controlled participant-blind trial

 

Surgical

Medical

Questions

CDL

PFDL

ES (d)

p-value

CDL

PFDL

ES (d)

p-value

Section i, (demographic data, not shown)

Section ii, structure – overall

2 (2-2.5)

1 (1–2)

0.89***

0.005

1 (1–2)

1 (1–2)

0.09

0.988

2.1 Is the layout clear?

2 (1.5-3)

1 (1-1.75)

0.99***

0.004

1 (1–2)

1.5 (1–2)

0.15

0.719

2.2 Is the structure comprehensible?

2 (2–2)

1 (1–2)

0.71**

0.039

1 (1–2)

1 (1–3)

0.63**

0.214

2.3 Does the content justify the length of the document?

2 (1–3)

1 (1–2)

0.49*

0.152

2 (1–3)

1 (1–1)

1.04***

0.004

Section iii, content – overall

2 (2–3)

1 (1–2)

1.01***

0.006

3 (1.75-4)

1 (1–2)

1.50***

< 0.001

3.1 Are the used abbreviations clear?

2 (1-3.5)

3 (2–5)

0.30*

0.352

3 (2.75-5)

2 (1–2)

0.92***

0.003

3.2 Are abbreviations explained?

6 (5–6)

2 (1–4)

1.52***

< 0.001

6 (6–6)

1.5 (1–3)

3.06***

< 0.001

3.3 Is the referral letter phrased in a comprehensible way?

2 (2–3)

1 (1–3)

0.17

0.170

2 (1–3)

1 (1–2)

0.76**

0.051

3.4 Is the chronological sequence of events during hospital stay presented in a conclusive manner?

2 (1.5–3.5)

2 (1–3)

0.43*

0.308

2 (1–3)

1.5 (1–2)

0.38*

0.424

3.5 Are main and secondary diagnoses clearly evident?

1 (1–1)

1 (1–1)

0.02

0.885

1 (1–3)

1 (1–1)

0.70**

0.171

3.6 Are the reasons for the therapeutic approach during hospital stay comprehensible?

2 (1–3)

2 (1–3)

0.49*

0.280

2 (1-3.25)

1 (1-2.25)

0.40*

0.279

3.7 Are therapy recommendations and goals of rehabilitation clear?

2 (1-3.5)

1 (1–1)

0.98***

0.006

3 (1–5)

1.5 (1–3)

0.55**

0.161

3.8 Are the therapeutic steps taken described in detail and comprehensible?

2 (1.5–3.5)

1 (1–2)

0.71**

0.036

2.5 (1-4.25)

2 (1–3)

0.73**

0.118

3.9 Is the recommended medication described in detail, including trade name, active ingredient, dosage and route of administration?

1 (1-4.5)

1 (1–1)

0.85***

0.026

2.5 (1.75-4)

1 (1–1)

1.22***

0.001

3.10 Is there information concerning possible allergies?

6 (5–6)

1 (1–1)

4.60***

< 0.001

6 (6–6)

1 (1–1)

4.07***

< 0.001

3.11 Is contact information of a doctor provided for possible queries?

2 (1–4)

1 (1–2)

0.72**

0.030

4 (1.5-6)

1 (1–1)

1.30***

0.001

Section iv, patient-friendliness – overall

5 (4–6)

2 (1–2)

2.53***

< 0.001

6 (5–6)

2 (1–3)

3.14***

< 0.001

4.1 Would a medical layperson be able to understand the content of the referral letter?

6 (5–6)

2 (2–4)

1.69***

< 0.001

6 (5–6)

3 (2–4)

2.19***

< 0.001

4.2 Would the indication of the prescribed medication be comprehensible for a medical layperson?

6 (4.5-6)

1 (1–2)

2.82***

< 0.001

6 (5.75-6)

2 (1-2.25)

4.18***

< 0.001

4.3 Would a medical layperson be able to deduce necessary further diagnostic or therapeutic measures from the referral letter?

3 (2.5-5)

2 (1–2)

1.52***

< 0.001

4 (2-5.25)

1 (1-2.25)

1.18***

0.001

Overall

2 (2–3)

1 (1–2)

1.24***

< 0.001

3 (2–4)

1 (1–2)

1.50***

< 0.001