Dataset Information

The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.

ABSTRACT: Numerous breast cancer risk assessment tools that allow users to input personal risk information and obtain a personalized breast cancer risk estimate are available on the Internet. The goal of these tools is to increase screening awareness and identify modifiable health behaviors; however, the utility of this risk information is limited by the readability of the material. We undertook this study to assess the overall readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and accompanying information, as well as to identify areas of suggested improvement. We searched for breast cancer risk assessment tools, using five search terms, on three search engines. All searches were performed on June 12, 2014. Sites that met inclusion criteria were then assessed for readability using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and the SMOG readability formula (July 1, 2014–January 31, 2015). The primary outcomes are the frequency distribution of overall SAM readability category (superior, adequate, or not suitable) and mean SMOG reading grade level. The search returned 42 sites were eligible for assessment, only 9 (21.4 %) of which achieved an overall SAM superior rating, and 27 (64.3 %) were deemed adequate. The average SMOG reading grade level was grade 12.1 (SD 1.6, range 9–15). The readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and the sites that host them is an important barrier to risk communication. This study demonstrates that most breast cancer risk assessment tools are not accessible to individuals with limited health literacy skills. More importantly, this study identifies potential areas of improvement and has the potential to heighten a physician’s awareness of the Internet resources a patient might navigate in their quest for breast cancer risk information.

SUBMITTER: Cortez S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4621697 | biostudies-other | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.

Cortez Sarah S Milbrandt Melissa M Kaphingst Kimberly K James Aimee A Colditz Graham G

Breast cancer research and treatment 20151101 1

Numerous breast cancer risk assessment tools that allow users to input personal risk information and obtain a personalized breast cancer risk estimate are available on the Internet. The goal of these tools is to increase screening awareness and identify modifiable health behaviors; however, the utility of this risk information is limited by the readability of the material. We undertook this study to assess the overall readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and accompanying informatio ...[more]

PMID: 26475705

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).

Project description:ObjectivesEvaluate the accuracy of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT), International Breast Cancer Intervention Study risk evaluation tool (IBIS), Polygenic Risk Scores (PRS) and combined scores (BCRAT+PRS and IBIS +PRS) to predict the occurrence of invasive breast cancers at 5 years in a French-Canadian population.DesignPopulation-based cohort study.SettingWe used the population-based cohort CARTaGENE, composed of 43 037 Quebec residents aged between 40 and 69 years and broadly representative of the population recorded on the Quebec administrative health insurance registries.Participants10 200 women recruited in 2009-2010 were included for validating BCRAT and IBIS and 4555 with genetic information for validating the PRS and combined scores.Outcome measuresWe computed the absolute risks of breast cancer at 5 years using BCRAT, IBIS, four published PRS and combined models. We reported the overall calibration performance, goodness-of-fit test and discriminatory accuracy.Results131 (1.28%) women developed a breast cancer at 5 years for validating BCRAT and IBIS and 58 (1.27%) for validating PRS and combined scores. Median follow-up was 5 years. BCRAT and IBIS had an overall expected-to-observed ratio of 1.01 (0.85-1.19) and 1.02 (0.86-1.21) but with significant differences when partitioning by risk groups (p<0.05). IBIS' c-index was significantly higher than BCRAT (63.42 (59.35-67.49) vs 58.63 (54.05-63.21), p=0.013). PRS scores had a global calibration around 0.82, with a CI including one, and non-significant goodness-of-fit tests. PRS' c-indexes were non-significantly higher than BCRAT and IBIS, the highest being 64.43 (58.23-70.63). Combined models did not improve the results.ConclusionsIn this French-Canadian population-based cohort, BCRAT and IBIS have good mean calibration that could be improved for risk subgroups, and modest discriminatory accuracy. Despite this modest discriminatory power, these tools can be of interest for primary care physicians for delivering a personalised message to their high-risk patients, regarding screening and lifestyle counselling.

Dataset Information

The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.

Publications

The readability of online breast cancer risk assessment tools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets