scholarly journals Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Information Leaflets for Antidiabetic Medications in Qatar

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 128-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emad Eldin Munsour ◽  
Ahmed Awaisu ◽  
Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali ◽  
Sara Darwish ◽  
Einas Abdoun
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
English Only ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
Health Related ◽  
The Mean

Background:The readability and comprehensibility of the patient information leaflets (PILs) provided with antidiabetic medications are of questionable standards; this issue negatively affects adherence to drug therapy, especially in patients with limited literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of PILs supplied with medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Qatar. Methods: All PILs of the antidiabetic medications in Qatar were evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score for readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading were used to estimate the comprehensibility of PILs in terms of school grade levels. Results: A total of 45 PILs were evaluated: 32 (71.1%) PILs of brand-name products and 13 (28.9%) for generics. Nine (20%) of the PILs were in English only; 8 (17.8%) were in English, Arabic, and French; and 28 (62.2%) were in English and Arabic. The mean FRE score was 37.71 (±15.85), and the most readable PIL had FRE score of 62. The mean scores for the comprehensibility evaluations were 10.96 (±2.67), 15.02 (±2.52), and 11.41 (±1.6) for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading, respectively. The most commonly used antidiabetic medication was metformin with 1372.9 (±552.9) as PILs’ mean number of words. Conclusion: Only 2.2% of PILs had acceptable readability scores. All PILs could be comprehended by at least an 11th grade student, which exceeds the recommended grade level for health-related materials. Approximately 20% of these PILs were in English only and were not readable by most patients.

scholarly journals Patient Information on Benign Colorectal Disease: An Assessment of the Value and Effectiveness of Traditional Methods

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 1410-1416
Author(s):  
Connor Boyle ◽  
Greg Bear ◽  
Marjolein van Winsen ◽  
Gary Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Information Access ◽  
Subjective Assessment ◽  
Colorectal Disease ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
Patient Questionnaires ◽  
Benign Colorectal Disease

Health literacy is the best predictor of health status, with patient information leaflets (PILs) commonly used to improve information access. However, they can often be inconsistent. Benign colorectal disease can be challenging for patients and ensuring they are accurate and understandable is important. Available PILs in a tertiary unit were assessed. The Flesch reading ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level scores were used to calculate objective readability. Subjective assessment of readability, understandability, and patient opinion was assessed using a questionnaire. All PILs had objective readability scores at age 14 or older, above recommended advice. Three hundred sixty patient questionnaires were collected. The relationship between subjective readability and understandability was significant ( P < .05); the easier a patient was able to read the information the more likely they were to understand it. There was no link between objective and subjective readability—a more difficult calculated reading score didn’t correspond to the patient finding it harder to read. Patients preferring paper information were significantly older than patients who preferred online information ( P = .01). Patient information leaflets remain valued by patients, and PILs that patients find easier to read are then better understood; however, ease of reading is not related to objective readability scoring and there was no consensus that a shift to online information is merited.

Readability of Printed Patient Information for Epileptic Patients

2002 ◽  
Vol 36 (12) ◽  
pp. 1856-1861 ◽  
Author(s):  
David R Foster ◽  
Denise H Rhoney
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Reading Ability ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Average Patient ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Patients With Epilepsy

BACKGROUND: Written information can be a valuable tool in patient education. Studies evaluating written information for various disease states have frequently demonstrated that the majority of literature is written at a readability level that exceeds that of the average patient, and it has been recommended that written communications for adult patients should be provided at a fifth-grade level or lower. OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability of printed patient information available to patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Samples of written patient information (n = 101) were obtained from various sources. The information was classified based on source, content, and intended audience, and readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch—Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) score. RESULTS: The mean FRES and FKGL score for all samples were 50.2 and 9.4, respectively. Significant differences were observed in both the FRES and FKGL score of material obtained from different sources; however, no differences were observed when material was analyzed according to content. The mean FRES and FKGL score for materials intended for adults were 49.6 and 9.5, respectively. In comparison, mean FRES and FKGL scores for materials intended for children/adolescents were 78.9 and 5.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of information tested was written at a level that exceeds the reading ability of many patients. The information intended for children is actually written at the appropriate level for an adult. Efforts should be taken to develop written teaching tools that target low-level readers, especially for a disease state that affects many children.

scholarly journals Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: Infodemiology study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Halboub ◽  
Mohammed Sultan Al-Akhali ◽  
Hesham M Al-Mekhlafi ◽  
Mohammed Nasser Alhajj
Keyword(s):  
American Medical Association ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Web

Abstract Objective: The study sought to assess the quality and readability of the web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19. Methods: Selected search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The quality of the websites was analyzed using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN benchmarks instrument. The readability was assessed using an online readability calculator tool. Results: Overall, 36 websites were found eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only one website (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No single website attained a high score based on the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5±12.55. Regarding JAMA benchmarks, a mean score of 2.08±1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only 4 (11.1%) websites achieved all JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2±7.5, 3.3±0.6 and 93.5±19.4 for Flesch Kincaid Grade level, SMOG, Flesch Reading Ease, respectively. Conclusion: Most of the available web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 doesn’t have the required level of quality, irrespective of being easy to read and understand by most of the general people.

So Difficult to Understand : Readability Index Analysis of Online Patient Information on Lymphoma from NCI- Designated Cancer Center.

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3567-3567
Author(s):  
Supreet Kaur ◽  
Abhishek Kumar ◽  
Dhruv Mehta ◽  
Michael Maroules
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Tenth Grade ◽  
Twelfth Grade ◽  
The Mean

Abstract Objectives - In current era of information technology, there is abundance of medical information for the patients and families. It is recommended that the online patient information (OPI) should be written no greater than sixth grade as per The National Institute of Health (NIH), American Medical Association, Department of Health & Human Services. We aim is to assess whether OPI on lymphoma from NCI-Designated Cancer Center (NCIDCC) and various cancer associations websites meet the current recommendations on a panel of readability indexes. Methods - OPI from patient only section of NCIDCC and cancer associations websites were collected. This text was analyzed by 7 commonly used readability tests - Flesch Reading Ease score(FRE), Gunning Fog(GF), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level(FKGL), The Coleman-Liau Index(CLI), The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Automated Readability Index(ARI) and Linsear Write Formula(LWF). Text from each article was pasted into Microsoft Word and analyzed using the online software Readability formulas. Results - The mean FRE score is 55.4 (range 37.4-67.9) which corresponded to difficult level grade. The mean GF score is 12.9 (range 10.8-15.2) that comes between difficult and hard. The FKGL score is 9.9 (range 7.2-11.9) that corresponds to above the level of ninth grader.The mean CLI score is 11.09 (range 9-12) which represented text of twelfth grade. The mean SMOG index is 9.6 (range 8.1-11.1) which corresponded to greater than seventh grade level. While the mean ARI score was 10.5 (range 7.7-12.5) which represents readability suitable for people more than tenth grade. The mean LWF was 11.29 (range 7.8-14.4) that corresponds to tenth grade level of text. Conclusion - The currently available OPI on lymphoma did not met the set national recommendations level on seven different validated readability indexes. Currently, available literature is difficult to understand and comprehend for average patient and their kins. There is a dire need to revise the currently available material for easy comprehension and understanding by the general patient population. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

scholarly journals Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: an infodemiological study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Halboub ◽  
Mohammed Sultan Al-Ak’hali ◽  
Hesham M. Al-Mekhlafi ◽  
Mohammed Nasser Alhajj
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Arabic Speakers ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Quality Assessments

Abstract Background This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19. Methods Three search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were analyzed for eligibility, which resulted in a sample of 36 websites. These websites were subjected to quality assessments using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks tool, the DISCERN tool, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the websites was assessed using an online readability calculator. Results Among the 36 eligible websites, only one (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No website attained a high score based on the criteria of the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5 ± 12.55. As regards the JAMA benchmarks results, a mean score of 2.08 ± 1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only four (11.1%) met all the JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2 ± 7.5, 3.3 ± 0.6 and 93.5 ± 19.4 for the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease scales, respectively. Conclusion Almost all of the most easily accessible web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 does not meet recognized quality standards regardless of the level of readability and ability to be understood by the general population of Arabic speakers.

Sexual health-related information delivery – are patient information leaflets still relevant?

Sexual Health ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 289
Author(s):  
Rick Varma ◽  
Charles Chung ◽  
Amanda Townsend ◽  
Melissa Power
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Sexual Health ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Risk Population ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Related Information ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
Health Related

Background Patient information leaflets (PILs) are widely utilised within publically funded sexual health clinics to deliver sexual health-related information (SHRI); however, their continued value to clients in the era of social media is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate clients’ opinions on three newly developed PILs and examine client views on other forms of SHRI delivery. Methods: An anonymous self-administered questionnaire was completed by clients attending the Western Sydney Sexual Health Centre (WSSHC) in 2012. High-risk population (HRP) vs non-high-risk population (non-HRP) views on PILs vs alternative methods of SHRI delivery were analysed by using Mann–Whitney U, Wilcoxon, McNemar and χ2 tests. Results: Over half (210/315; (67%)) of the consecutive clients from a culturally diverse population completed the survey. Sex workers (SW) and young people (YP) were significantly likely to have a high school education than non-HRP (P < 0.039 and P < 0.032). Overall, PILs, a clinic website and the Sexual Health Information Link (SHIL), a state-wide website and telephone line, were ranked significantly higher as a means of SHRI delivery on a Likert scale than newer technologies including Facebook (P < 0.001), email (P < 0.001), mobile phone applications (P < 0.001), TVs in waiting rooms (P < 0.001) and business cards (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in opinion between HRP and non-HRP. Conclusions: This study provides evidence for the ongoing use of PILs to deliver SHRI to clinic attendees, in conjunction with other forms of SHRI delivery such as websites and SHIL. Novel methods may require additional consumer engagement and a greater understanding of specific population’s needs.

A comparative analysis of the lay-friendliness of Danish EU patient information leaflets from 2000 to 2012

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Askehave ◽  
Karen Korning Zethsen
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Patient Information Leaflet ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Information Leaflet ◽  
Empirical Results ◽  
Patient Information Leaflets ◽  
Information Leaflets ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Eu

Since becoming mandatory in the EU in 1992, the patient information leaflet (PIL) has been the subject of an on-going discussion regarding its ability to provide easily understandable information. This study examines whether the lay-friendliness of Danish PILs has improved from 2000 to 2012 according to the Danish consumers. A reproduction of a questionnaire study from 2000 was carried out. The responses of the 2012 survey were compared to those of the 2000 survey and the analysis showed that Danes are less inclined to read the PIL in 2012 compared to 2000 and that the general interest in PILs has decreased. The number of respondents who deem the PIL easy to read has gone down. According to Danish consumers, the lay-friendliness of PILs has not improved from 2000 to 2012 and a very likely explanation could be that the PIL as a genre has become far too regulated and complex to live up to its original intentions. On the basis of the empirical results the article furthermore offers suggestions for practice changes.

How readable and reliable is online patient information on chronic rhinosinusitis?

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
A Habeeb
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Rhinosinusitis ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Information Quality ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Improve Patient Compliance ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Improve Patient ◽  
Average Adult

Abstract Objective This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of websites on chronic rhinosinusitis. Methods A total of 180 results from 3 different search engines regarding ‘chronic rhinosinusitis’, ‘sinusitis’ and ‘sinus infections’ were analysed for readability using the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score and Gunning Fog Index. The Discern tool was used to approximate information quality. Results From 180 total searches, 69 unique websites were identified. These had an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level of 9.75 (95 per cent confidence interval = 9.12–10.4), a Flesch Reading Ease Score of 45.0 (41.0–49.0) and a Gunning Fog Index of 13.7 (12.9–14.4), which equates to the average reading level of a college or university student. Discern scores were variable but consistently showed good-quality information. Conclusion Chronic rhinosinusitis information is of a high quality but is for a reading level higher than that of the average adult. Standardising patient information should ensure adequate comprehension and improve patient compliance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document