Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sabharwal S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2311488 | biostudies-other | 2008 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
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: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:BACKGROUND:The NIH and Department of Health & Human Services recommend online patient information (OPI) be written at a sixth grade level. We used a panel of readability analyses to assess OPI from NCI-Designated Cancer Center (NCIDCC) Web sites. METHODS:Cancer.gov was used to identify 68 NCIDCC Web sites from which we collected both general OPI and OPI specific to breast, prostate, lung, and colon cancers. This text was analyzed by 10 commonly used readability tests: the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Flesch Reading Ease scale, Flesch-Kinaid Grade Level, FORCAST scale, Fry Readability Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook test, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook index, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate Graph, and Coleman-Liau Index. We tested the hypothesis that the readability of NCIDCC OPI was written at the sixth grade level. Secondary analyses were performed to compare readability of OPI between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers, by region, and to OPI produced by the American Cancer Society (ACS). RESULTS:A mean of 30,507 words from 40 comprehensive and 18 noncomprehensive NCIDCCs was analyzed (7 nonclinical and 3 without appropriate OPI were excluded). Using a composite grade level score, the mean readability score of 12.46 (ie, college level: 95% CI, 12.13-12.79) was significantly greater than the target grade level of 6 (middle-school: P<.001). No difference between comprehensive and noncomprehensive centers was identified. Regional differences were identified in 4 of the 10 readability metrics (P<.05). ACS OPI provides easier language, at the seventh to ninth grade level, across all tests (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS:OPI from NCIDCC Web sites is more complex than recommended for the average patient.
| S-EPMC7236813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Comprehensive patient education is necessary for shared decision-making. While patient-provider conversations primarily drive patient education, patients also use published materials to enhance their understanding. In this investigation, we evaluated the readability of 2585 patient education materials published in high-impact medical journals from 1998 to 2018 and compared our findings to readability recommendations from national groups. For all materials, mean readability grade levels ranged from 11.2 to 13.8 by various metrics. Fifty-four (2.1%) materials met the American Medical Association recommendation of sixth grade reading level, and 215 (8.2%) met the National Institutes of Health recommendation of eighth grade level. When stratified by journal and material type, general medical education materials from Annals of Internal Medicine were the most readable (P < .001), with 79.8% meeting the eighth grade level. Readability did not differ significantly over time. Efforts to standardize publication practice with the incorporation of readability evaluation during the review process may improve patients' understanding of their disease processes and treatment options.
| S-EPMC8205335 | 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:Background Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans can help reclassify risk and guide patient-clinician shared treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease prevention. Patients increasingly access online patient educational materials (OPEMs) to guide medical decision-making. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that OPEMs should be written below a 6th-grade reading level. This study estimated the readability of commonly accessed OPEMs on CAC scans. Methods and Results The terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score" were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 50 commonly accessed websites based on order of search results on December 17, 2019. Grade-level readability was calculated using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Results were compared with AMA-recommended readability parameters. Overall grade-level readability among all search terms was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.3-12.5). Average grade-level readability of OPEMs for the search terms "coronary artery calcium scan," "heart scan," and "CAC score," was 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0-12.5), 10.5 (95% CI, 8.9-12.1), and 11.9 (95% CI, 10.3-13.5), respectively. Professional society and news/media/blog websites had the highest average reading grade level of 12.6, while health system websites had the lowest average reading grade level of 10.0. Less than half of the unique websites (45.3%) included explanatory images or videos. Conclusions Current OPEMs on CAC scans are written at a higher reading level than recommended for the general public. This may lead to patient misunderstanding, which could exacerbate disparities in cardiovascular health among groups with lower health literacy.
| S-EPMC7726991 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThousands of web searches are performed related to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), given its palliative role in the treatment of liver cancer.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the reliability, quality, completeness, readability, understandability, and actionability of websites that provide information on TACE for patients.MethodsThe five most popular keywords pertaining to TACE were searched on Google, Yahoo, and Bing. General website characteristics and the presence of Health On the Net Foundation code certification were documented. Website assessment was performed using the following scores: DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. A novel TACE content score was generated to evaluate website completeness.ResultsThe search yielded 3750 websites. In total, 81 website entities belonging to 78 website domains met the inclusion criteria. A medical disclaimer was not provided on 28% (22/78) of website domains. Health On the Net code certification was present on 12% (9/78) of website domains. Authorship was absent on 88% (71/81) of websites, and sources were absent on 83% (67/81) of websites. The date of publication or of the last update was not listed on 58% (47/81) of websites. The median DISCERN score was 47.0 (IQR 40.5-54.0). The median TACE content score was 35 (IQR 27-43). The median readability grade level was in the 11th grade. Overall, 61% (49/81) and 16% (13/81) of websites were deemed understandable and actionable, respectively. Not-for-profit websites fared significantly better on the Journal of the American Medical Association, DISCERN, and TACE content scores.ConclusionsThe content referring to TACE that is currently available on the web is unreliable, incomplete, difficult to read, understandable but not actionable, and characterized by low overall quality. Websites need to revise their content to optimally educate consumers and support shared decision-making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020202747; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020202747.
| S-EPMC8140383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As multiple different treatment options are available for prostate cancer (PCa) and YouTube is commonly used as a source for medical information, we performed a systematic and comparative assessment of available videos guiding patients on their choice for the optimal treatment. An independent search for surgical therapy or radiotherapy of PCa on YouTube was performed and the 40 most viewed videos of both groups were analyzed. The validated DISCERN questionnaire and PEMAT were utilized to evaluate their quality and misinformation. The median overall quality of the videos was found to be low for surgery videos, while radiotherapy videos results reached a moderate quality. The median PEMAT understandability score was 60% (range 0-100%) for radiotherapy and 75% (range 40-100) for surgery videos. The radiotherapy videos contained less misinformation and were judged to be of higher quality. Summarized, the majority of the provided videos offer insufficient quality of content and are potentially subject to commercial bias without reports on possible conflict of interest. Thus, most of available videos on YouTube informing PCa patients about possible treatment methods are not suited for a balanced patient education or as a basis for the patient's decision.
| S-EPMC8482178 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Patients frequently consult the internet for health information. Our aim was to perform an Internet-based readability and quality control study using recognised quality scoring systems to assess the patient information available online relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement surgery. Methods: Online patient information relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement was identified using Google, Bing and Yahoo with search terms 'hip replacement anaesthetic', 'knee replacement anaesthetic.' Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using DISCERN instrument, Health On the Net Foundation seal, and Information Standard mark. Results: 32 websites were analysed. 25% were HONcode certified, 15.6% had the Information Standard. Mean FRE was 55.2±12.8. Mean FKGL was 8.6±1.9. Six websites (18.8%) had the recommended 6 th-grade readability level. Mean of 10.4±2.6 years of formal education was required to read the websites. Websites with Information Standard were easier to read: FKGL (6.2 vs. 9, P < 0.001), GFI (8.8 vs. 10.7, P = 0.04), FRE score (64.2 vs. 9, P = 0.02). Mean DISCERN score was low: 40.3 ± 13. Conclusions: Overall, most websites were poor quality with reading levels too high for the target audience. Information Standard NHS quality mark was associated with improved readability, however along with HONcode were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with quality. Based on this study, we would encourage healthcare professionals to be judicious in the websites they recommend to patients, and to consider both the readability and quality of the information provided.
| S-EPMC7722535 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of online patient education materials (OPEM) related to breast cancer risk assessment.Material and methodsWe queried seven English-language search terms related to breast cancer risk assessment: breast cancer high-risk, breast cancer risk factors, breast cancer family history, BRCA, breast cancer risk assessment, Tyrer-Cuzick, and Gail model. Websites were categorized as: academic/hospital-based, commercial, government, non-profit or academic based on the organization hosting the site. Grade-level readability of qualifying websites and categories was determined using readability metrics and generalized estimating equations based on written content only. Readability scores were compared to the recommended parameters set by the American Medical Association (AMA). Understandability and actionability of OPEM related to breast cancer high-risk were evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and compared to criteria set at ≥70%. Descriptive statistics and inter-rater reliability analysis were utilized.Results343 websites were identified, of which 162 met study inclusion criteria. The average grade readability score was 12.1 across all websites (range 10.8-13.4). No website met the AMA recommendation. Commercial websites demonstrated the highest overall average readability of 13.1. Of the 26 websites related to the search term breast cancer high-risk, the average understandability and actionability scores were 62% and 34% respectively, both below criteria.ConclusionsOPEM on breast cancer risk assessment available to the general public do not meet criteria for readability, understandability, or actionability. To ensure patient comprehension of medical information online, future information should be published in simpler, more appropriate terms.
| S-EPMC8665407 | biostudies-literature