Readability of Patient Education Materials From High-Impact Medical Journals: A 20-Year Analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rooney MK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8205335 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association.MethodsUsing an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non-patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM.ResultsA total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association.ConclusionsLack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).
| S-EPMC8790699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs).MethodsSystematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level.ResultsForty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels.ConclusionsOver 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.
| S-EPMC6595308 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the goals of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is to disseminate patient education materials that suit the readability skills of the patient population. According to standard guidelines from healthcare organizations, the readability of patient education materials should be no higher than the sixth-grade level. We hypothesized the readability level of patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site would be higher than the recommended grade level, regardless when the material was available online. Readability scores of all articles from the AAOS Internet-based patient information Web site, "Your Orthopaedic Connection," were determined using the Flesch-Kincaid grade formula. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level of the 426 unique articles was 10.43. Only 10 (2%) of the articles had the recommended readability level of sixth grade or lower. The readability of the articles did not change with time. Our findings suggest the majority of the patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site had readability scores that may be too difficult for comprehension by a substantial portion of the patient population.
| S-EPMC2311488 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundGiven that nasal septoplasty is a common procedure in otolaryngology - head and neck surgery, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on septoplasty.MethodsA Google search was performed using eight different search terms related to septoplasty. Six different tools were used to assess the readability of included patient education materials. These included the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The DISCERN tool was used to assess quality and reliability.ResultsEighty-five online patient education materials were included. The average Flesch-Reading Ease score for all patient education materials was 54.9 ± 11.5, indicating they were fairly difficult to read. The average reading grade level was 10.5 ± 2.0, which is higher than the recommended reading level for patient education materials. The mean DISCERN score was 42.9 ± 10.5 and 42% (36/85) of articles had DISCERN scores less than 39, corresponding to poor or very poor quality.ConclusionThe majority of online patient education materials on septoplasty are written above the recommended reading levels and have significant deficiencies in terms of their quality and reliability. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the shortcomings of these resources and consider the impact they may have on patients' decision making.
| S-EPMC7970817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to "post-COVID-19 pain."MethodsOne-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms "post-COVID-19 pain" and "pain after COVID-19" using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively.ResultsUpon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.
| S-EPMC9308460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIncreasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety.MethodsA total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman-Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests.ResultsThe cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6-17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8-7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8-5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 ('difficult').ConclusionCurrently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice.
| S-EPMC8531160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Academic degrees following author names are often included in medical research papers. However, it remains unclear how many journals choose to include academic degrees and whether this is more common in certain types of journals. We examined the 100 highest impact medical journals and found that only 24 medical journals reported academic degrees. Moreover, this was substantially more common in journals based in North America compared with Europe. Further research is required to explore the implications of listing academic degrees on the readers' attitude towards research quality.
| S-EPMC7014575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe internet has become an increasingly popular resource among sports medicine patients seeking injury-related information. Numerous organizations recommend that patient educational materials (PEMs) should not exceed sixth-grade reading level. Despite this, studies have consistently shown the reading grade level (RGL) of PEMs to be too demanding across a range of surgical specialties.PurposeTo determine the readability of online sports medicine PEMs.Study designCross-sectional study.MethodsThe readability of 363 articles pertaining to sports medicine from 5 leading North American websites was assessed using 8 readability formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Raygor Estimate, Fry Readability Formula, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau Index, FORCAST Readability Formula, and Gunning Fog Index. The mean RGL of each article was compared with the sixth- and eighth-grade reading level in the United States. The cumulative mean website RGL was also compared among individual websites.ResultsThe overall cumulative mean RGL was 12.2 (range, 7.0-17.7). No article (0%) was written at a sixth-grade reading level, and only 3 articles (0.8%) were written at or below the eighth-grade reading level. The overall cumulative mean RGL was significantly higher than the sixth-grade [95% CI for the difference, 6.0-6.5; P < .001] and eighth-grade (95% CI, 4.0-4.5; P < .001) reading levels. There was a significant difference among the cumulative mean RGLs of the 5 websites assessed.ConclusionSports medicine PEMs produced by leading North American specialty websites have readability scores that are above the recommended levels. Given the increasing preference of patients for online health care materials, the imperative role of health literacy in patient outcomes, and the growing body of online resources, significant work needs to be undertaken to improve the readability of these materials.
| S-EPMC9082750 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient education materials (PEMs) can be vital sources of information for the general population. However, despite American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommendations to make PEMs easier to read for patients with low health literacy, they often do not adhere to these recommendations. The readability of online PEMs in the obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) field, in particular, has not been thoroughly investigated.ObjectiveThe study sampled online OB/GYN PEMs and aimed to examine (1) agreeability across traditional readability measures (TRMs), (2) adherence of online PEMs to AMA and NIH recommendations, and (3) whether the readability level of online PEMs varied by web-based source and medical topic. This study is not a scoping review, rather, it focused on scoring the readability of OB/GYN PEMs using the traditional measures to add empirical evidence to the literature.MethodsA total of 1576 online OB/GYN PEMs were collected via 3 major search engines. In total 93 were excluded due to shorter content (less than 100 words), yielding 1483 PEMs for analysis. Each PEM was scored by 4 TRMs, including Flesch-Kincaid grade level, Gunning fog index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Dale-Chall. The PEMs were categorized based on publication source and medical topic by 2 research team members. The readability scores of the categories were compared statistically.ResultsResults indicated that the 4 TRMs did not agree with each other, leading to the use of an averaged readability (composite) score for comparison. The composite scores across all online PEMs were not normally distributed and had a median at the 11th grade. Governmental PEMs were the easiest to read amongst source categorizations and PEMs about menstruation were the most difficult to read. However, the differences in the readability scores among the sources and the topics were small.ConclusionsThis study found that online OB/GYN PEMs did not meet the AMA and NIH readability recommendations and would be difficult to read and comprehend for patients with low health literacy. Both findings connected well to the literature. This study highlights the need to improve the readability of OB/GYN PEMs to help patients make informed decisions. Research has been done to create more sophisticated readability measures for medical and health documents. Once validated, these tools need to be used by web-based content creators of health education materials.
| S-EPMC10500363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth literacy is key to navigating the current global epidemic of misinformation and inaccuracy relating to healthcare. The American Medical Association (AMA) suggests health information should be written at the level of American sixth grade. With the monkeypox outbreak being declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in July 2022, we sought to assess the readability of online patient education materials (PEMs) relating to monkeypox to see if they are at the target level of readability.MethodsA search was conducted on Google.com using the search term 'Monkeypox'. The top 50 English language webpages with patient education materials (PEMs) relating to monkeypox were compiled and categorised by country of publication and URL domain. Readability was assessed using five readability tools: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG). Unpaired t-test for URL domain, and one-way ANOVA for country were performed to determine influence on readability.ResultsThree of the five tools (FRES, GFI, CLI) identified no webpages that met the target readability score. The FKGL and SMOG tools identified one (2%) and two (4%) webpages respectively that met the target level. County and URL domain demonstrated no influence on readability.ConclusionOnline PEMs relating to monkeypox are written above the recommended reading level. Based on the previously established effect of health literacy, this is likely exacerbating health inequalities. This study highlights the need for readability to be considered when publishing online PEMs.
| S-EPMC9770025 | biostudies-literature