Abstract：
Immobilisation masks (IMs) are used for people with head and neck cancer (HNC) undergoing radiation therapy (RT) treatment to ensure accuracy and reproducibility between treatments. Claustrophobia-related mask anxiety in HNC patients is common and can compromise treatment due to patient distress. This scoping review aimed to describe the content of publicly available Patient Education Materials (PEMs) for people with HNC undergoing RT. Three search engines (Bing, Yahoo, and Google) were systematically searched using standard terms. PEMs in audio-visual or written formats were eligible for inclusion if the target readership was adults with HNC and included content on IMs for RT. Content was appraised using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable and Audio-Visual Materials to assess understandability and actionability. In total, 304 PEMs were identified of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen PEMs were webpages, three were PDF format, and one was a standalone video. The understandability and actionability of PEMs ranged between 47 to 100% and 0 to 80%, respectively. PEMs authored by Foundations/Organisations scored higher in understandability (80-100%) and were more likely to discuss mask anxiety coping strategies. In comparison, News sites and IM manufacturers published PEMs with the lowest understandability scores (20-80%). The significant variations in the quality of IM PEMs identified suggest that some sources may be more effective at informing patients about IMs. Although multiple aspects of the PEMs were consistent across the reviewed materials, many PEMs lacked information, and a stronger focus on understandability and actionability is required.
摘要：
固定面罩（IM）用于接受放射治疗（RT）治疗的头颈部癌症（HNC）患者，以确保治疗之间的准确性和可重复性。HNC患者中与幽闭恐怖症相关的面罩焦虑很常见，并且由于患者的困扰而可能会损害治疗。此范围审查旨在描述针对接受RT的HNC患者的公开患者教育材料（PEM）的内容。三个搜索引擎（Bing，雅虎，和谷歌)使用标准术语进行了系统搜索。如果目标读者是患有HNC的成年人，并且在RT的IM上包含内容，则视听或书面格式的PEM有资格纳入。使用可打印和视听材料的患者教育材料评估工具评估内容，以评估可理解性和可操作性。总的来说,确定了304个PEM，其中20个符合纳入标准。十六个PEM是网页，三个是PDF格式，一个是独立的视频.PEM的可理解性和可操作性介于47％至100％和0％至80％之间，分别。基金会/组织撰写的PEM在可理解性方面得分更高（80-100％），并且更有可能讨论掩盖焦虑的应对策略。相比之下,新闻网站和IM制造商发布的PEM的可理解性得分最低（20-80％）。ThesignificantvariationsinthequalityofIMPEMidentifiedsuggeststhatsomesourcesmaybemoreeffectiveatinformingpatientsaboutIMs.AlthoughmultipleaspectsofthePEMwereconsistentacrossthereviewedmaterials,许多PEM缺乏信息，需要更加注重可理解性和可操作性。
