Health Literacy: Readability of ACC/AHA Online Patient Education Material

Cardiology ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 138 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karan Kapoor ◽  
Praveen George ◽  
Matthew C. Evans ◽  
Weldon J. Miller ◽  
Stanley S. Liu
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Heart Association ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Patient Education Material ◽  
Education Material ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Online Patient Education

Objectives: To determine whether the online patient education material offered by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) is written at a higher level than the 6th-7th grade level recommended by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Methods: Online patient education material from each website was subjected to reading grade level (RGL) analysis using the Readability Studio Professional Edition. One-sample t testing was used to compare the mean RGLs obtained from 8 formulas to the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean. Results: In total, 372 articles from the ACC website and 82 from the AHA were studied. Mean (±SD) RGLs for the 454 articles were 9.6 ± 2.1, 11.2 ± 2.1, 11.9 ± 1.6, 10.8 ± 1.6, 9.7 ± 2.1, 10.8 ± 0.8, 10.5 ± 2.6, and 11.7 ± 3.5 according to the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG Index), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), New Dale-Chall reading level formula (NDC), FORCAST, Raygor Readability Estimate (RRE), and Fry Graph (Fry), respectively. All analyzed articles had significantly higher RGLs than both the NIH-recommended grade level of 6.5 and the national mean grade level of 8 (p < 0.00625). Conclusions: Patient education material provided on the ACC and AHA websites is written above the NIH-recommended 6.5 grade level and 8th grade national mean reading level. Additional studies are required to demonstrate whether lowering the RGL of this material improves outcomes among patients with cardiovascular disease.

scholarly journals Readability of patient education materials related to radiation safety: What are the implications for patient-centred radiology care?

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis T. Delaney ◽  
Tiarnán Ó. Doinn ◽  
James M. Broderick ◽  
Emma Stanley
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
Radiation Safety ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Grade Reading Level

Abstract Background Increasing 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. Methods A 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. Results The 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’). Conclusion Currently 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.

scholarly journals Comparative Readability Analysis of Online Patient Education Resources on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases

2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rishabh Gulati ◽  
Mohammad Nawaz ◽  
Linh Lam ◽  
Nikolaos T. Pyrsopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Crohn’S Disease ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Crohn's Disease ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Patient Education Material ◽  
Education Resources ◽  
Education Material ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Online Patient Education

Background. The National Institutes of Health recommend a readability grade level of less than 7th grade for patient directed information. In this study, we use validated readability metrics to analyze patient information from prominent websites pertaining to ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease.Methods. The terms “Crohn’s Disease,” “Ulcerative Colitis,” and “Inflammatory Bowel Disease” were queried on Google and Bing. Websites containing patient education material were saved as a text file and then modified through expungement of medical terminology that was described within the text. Modified text was then divided into subsections that were analyzed using six validated readability scales.Results. None of the websites analyzed in this study achieved an estimated reading grade level below the recommended 7th grade. The median readability grade level (after modification) was 11.5 grade levels for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. The treatment subsection required the highest level of education with a median readability grade of 12th grade (range of 6.9 to 17).Conclusion. Readability of online patient education material from the analyzed popular websites far exceeds the recommended level of being less than 7th grade. Patient education resources should be revised to achieve wider health literacy.

Osteosarcoma Health Literacy: A Quantitative Assessment of the Understandability and Readability of Web-based Patient Education Material (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Gulbrandsen ◽  
Mary Kate Skalitzky ◽  
Alan Gregory Shamrock ◽  
Burke Gao ◽  
Obada Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Online Resources ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Education Material ◽  
American Adult ◽  
The Mean

BACKGROUND Patients often turn to online resources following the diagnosis of osteosarcoma. To be fully understood by the average American adult, the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend online health information to be written at a 6th grade level or lower. Previous analyses of osteosarcoma resources have not measured whether text is written such that readers can process key information (understandability) or identify available actions to take (actionability). The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) is a validated measurement of understandability and actionability. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate osteosarcoma online resources utilizing measures of readability, understandability, and actionability. METHODS Using the search term “osteosarcoma”, two independent searches (Google.com) were performed and the top 50 results were collected. Websites were included if directed at providing patient education on osteosarcoma. Readability was quantified using validated algorithms: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Ease (FKGE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade-Level (FKGL). A higher FKGE score represents the material is easier to read. All other readability scores represent the US school grade level. Two independent PEMAT assessments were performed with independent scores assigned for both understandability and actionability. A PEMAT score of 70% or below is considered poorly understandable and/or poorly actionable. Statistical significance was defined as p≤0.05. RESULTS Of 53 unique websites, 37 websites (69.8%) met inclusion criteria. The mean FKGE was 40.8±13.6. The mean FKGL grade level was 12.0±2.4. No (0%) websites scored within the acceptable NIH/AHA recommended reading level. Overall, only 10.8% (n=4) and 2.7% (n=1) met the acceptable understandability and actionability threshold. CONCLUSIONS Overall, osteosarcoma online patient educational materials scored poorly with respect to readability, understandability, and actionability. None of the online resources scored at the recommended reading level. Only four met the appropriate score to considered understandable by the general public. Future efforts should be made to improve online resources in order to support patient understanding.

scholarly journals Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596711880538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rafael Kakazu ◽  
Adam Schumaier ◽  
Chelsea Minoughan ◽  
Brian Grawe
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Eighth Grade ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Education Resources ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
Readability Formula

Background: Appropriate education on the disease processes associated with orthopaedic pathology can affect patient expectations and functional outcome. Hypothesis: Patient education resources from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) are too complex for comprehension by the average orthopaedic patient. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM were analyzed with software that provided 10 readability scores as well as opportunities for improving readability. The readability scores were compared with the recommended eighth-grade reading level. Results: A total of 39 patient education resources were identified and evaluated. The mean ± SD reading grade-level scores were as follows: Coleman-Liau Index, 12.5 ± 1.11; New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, 10.9 ± 1.37; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, 9.9 ± 1.06; FORCAST Readability Formula, 11.4 ± 0.51; Fry Readability Formula, 12.8 ± 2.79; Gunning Fog Index, 11.9 ± 1.37; Raygor Readability Index, 13.1 ± 2.37; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 12.3 ± 0.90; Automated Readability Index, 11.2 ± 1.18; and New Automated Readability Index, 10.6 ± 1.27. After averaging the reading grade-level scores, only 1 patient education resource was found to be written at an 8th- to 9th-grade level, and 14 (36%) were written above a 12th-grade level. All scores were significantly different from the eighth-grade level ( P < .0065). The percentage of complex words and long words were 19.6% ± 2.67% and 41.4% ± 3.18%, respectively. Conclusion: Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM are at a significantly higher reading level than recommended. Simple changes can drastically improve these scores to increase health literacy and possibly outcome.

scholarly journals Readability of the American, Canadian, and British Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Societies’ Patient Materials

2021 ◽  
pp. 019459982110332
Author(s):  
Joo Hyun Kim ◽  
Elysia Grose ◽  
Justine Philteos ◽  
David Forner ◽  
Christopher W. Noel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Head And Neck Surgery ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Comprehension ◽  
Reading Grade Level

Objective Patient education materials across 3 national English otolaryngology–head and neck surgery (OHNS) societies: the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS), the Canadian Society of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery (CSOHNS), and Ear, Nose, and Throat United Kingdom (ENT UK) were examined to determine whether they are written at a level suitable for patient comprehension. Study Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Online patient materials presented through OHNS national societies. Methods Readability was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. All public patient education materials available through the CSOHNS, AAO-HNS, and ENT UK websites were assessed. Patient education materials were grouped into categories by subspecialty. Results In total, 128 patient materials from the 3 societies were included in the study. All 3 societies required a minimum grade 9 reading comprehension level to understand their online materials. According to Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, the CSOHNS required a significantly higher reading grade level to comprehend the materials presented when compared to AAO-HNS (11.3 vs 9.9; 95% CI, 0.5-2.4; P < .01) and ENT UK (11.3 vs 9.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.9; P < .01). Patient education materials related to rhinology were the least readable among all 3 societies. Conclusion This study suggests that the reading level of the current patient materials presented through 3 national OHNS societies are written at a level that exceeds current recommendations. Promisingly, it highlights an improvement for the readability of patient materials presented through the AAO-HNS.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document