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 An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katie Dalziel ◽  
Michael J. Leveridge ◽  
Stephen S. Steele ◽  
Jason P. Izard
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Important Determinant ◽  
Low Literacy ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Disease States ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Information Materials ◽  
Improve Health

Introduction: Health literacy has been shown to be an important determinant of outcomes in numerous disease states. In an effort to improve health literacy, the Canadian Urological Association (CUA) publishes freely accessible patient information materials (PIMs) on common urological conditions. We sought to evaluate the readability of the CUA’s PIMs.Methods: All PIMs were accessed through the CUA website. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the number of educational graphics were determined for each PIM. Low FRES scores and high FKGL scores are associated with more difficult-to-read text. Average readability values were calculated for each PIM category based on the CUA-defined subject categorizes. The five pamphlets with the highest FKGL scores were revised using word substitutions for complex multisyllabic words and reanalyzed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify readability differences between PIM categories and paired t-tests were used to test differences between FKGL scores beforeand after revisions.Results: Across all PIMs, FRES values were low (mean 47.5, standard deviation [SD] 7.47). This corresponded to an average FKGL of 10.5 (range 8.1‒12.0). Among PIM categories, the infertility andsexual function PIMs exhibited the highest average FKGL (mean 11.6), however, differences in scores between categories were not statistically significant (p=0.38). The average number of words persentence was also highest in the infertility and sexual function PIMs and significantly higher than other categories (mean 17.2; p=0.01). On average, there were 1.4 graphics displayed per PIM (range 0‒4), which did not vary significantly by disease state (p=0.928). Simple words substitutions improved the readability of the five most difficult-to-read PIMs by an average of 3.1 grade points (p<0.01).Conclusions: Current patient information materials published by the CUA compare favourably to those produced by other organizations, but may be difficult to read for low-literacy patients. Readability levels must be balanced against the required informational needs of patients, which may be intrinsically complex.

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.

Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

1994 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 2211-2215 ◽  
Author(s):  
S A Grossman ◽  
S Piantadosi ◽  
C Covahey
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Clinical Oncology ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Cooperative Group ◽  
Oncology Group ◽  
Consent Forms ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Johns Hopkins Oncology

PURPOSE This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. METHODS One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. RESULTS The mean +/- SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 +/- 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 +/- 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and 14.1 +/- 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. CONCLUSION Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.

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 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 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 Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (8) ◽  
pp. 645-649 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Sivanadarajah ◽  
I El-Daly ◽  
G Mamarelis ◽  
MZ Sohail ◽  
P Bates
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Significant Proportion ◽  
Consent Form ◽  
Online Tool ◽  
Consent Forms ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
British Orthopaedic Association

Introduction The aim of this study was to objectively ascertain the level of readability of standardised consent forms for orthopaedic procedures. Methods Standardised consent forms (both in summary and detailed formats) endorsed by the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) were retrieved from orthoconsent.com and assessed for readability. This involved using an online tool to calculate the validated Flesch reading ease score (FRES). This was compared with the FRES for the National Health Service (NHS) Consent Form 1. Data were analysed and interpreted according to the FRES grading table. Results The FRES for Consent Form 1 was 55.6, relating to the literacy expected of an A level student. The mean FRES for the BOA summary consent forms (n=27) was 63.6 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.2–66.0) while for the detailed consent forms (n=32), it was 68.9 (95% CI: 67.7–70.0). All BOA detailed forms scored >60, correlating to the literacy expected of a 13–15-year-old. The detailed forms had a higher FRES than the summary forms (p<0.001). Conclusions This study demonstrates that the BOA endorsed standardised consent forms are much easier to read and understand than the NHS Consent Form 1, with the detailed BOA forms being the easiest to read. Despite this, owing to varying literacy levels, a significant proportion of patients may struggle to give informed consent based on the written information provided to them.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Quality and Readability of Health Information Websites Identified through India’s Major Search Engines

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Raj ◽  
V. L. Sharma ◽  
A. J. Singh ◽  
S. Goel
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean

Background. The available health information on websites should be reliable and accurate in order to make informed decisions by community. This study was done to assess the quality and readability of health information websites on World Wide Web in India.Methods. This cross-sectional study was carried out in June 2014. The key words “Health” and “Information” were used on search engines “Google” and “Yahoo.” Out of 50 websites (25 from each search engines), after exclusion, 32 websites were evaluated. LIDA tool was used to assess the quality whereas the readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and SMOG.Results. Forty percent of websites (n=13) were sponsored by government. Health On the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification was present on 50% (n=16) of websites. The mean LIDA score (74.31) was average. Only 3 websites scored high on LIDA score. Only five had readability scores at recommended sixth-grade level.Conclusion. Most health information websites had average quality especially in terms of usability and reliability and were written at high readability levels. Efforts are needed to develop the health information websites which can help general population in informed decision making.

The reliability of the Internet for patient-centred education for surgical procedures

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 197-203
Author(s):  
Ca Slinger ◽  
I Smillie
Keyword(s):  
Surgical Procedures ◽  
Patient Information ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Written Information ◽  
Ease Score

Background There is increasing use of the Internet by patients as an educational tool prior to a surgical procedure. However, the quality of information is highly variable, and it is imperative that as clinicians, we are aware of the information available to ensure that consent is valid and avoid unrealistic expectations. Our aim is to assess the quality of medical information available on the Internet related to common surgical procedures. Methods Analysis of the quality of patient information on 10 websites for six common surgical conditions ( n = 54 following exclusions) was assessed using the DISCERN questionnaire and, for readability, using the Flesch reading ease test. Results There was high variation in the DISCERN score from 1.34 to 4.4 (mean 2.75). Overall, poor quality of patient information is available. Consistent scoring below 55 on Flesch reading ease score suggests a reading level beyond the majority of the patient population. Conclusion The majority of patient-centred health education on the Internet is poor. Therefore, improved verbal and written information during consultation combined with local, national and international websites is important to meet patient’s expectations and avoid issues regarding consent.

DOZ047.115: Quality and readability of esophageal atresia information on the Internet

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B R O’Connor ◽  
E Doherty ◽  
F Friedmacher ◽  
L Vernon ◽  
T S Paran
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Atresia ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Google Search

Abstract Introduction Increasingly in pediatric surgical practice, patients, their parents, and surgeons alike use the Internet as an easily and quickly accessible source of information about conditions and their treatment. The quality and reliability of this information may often be unregulated. We aim to objectively assess the online information available relating to esophageal atresia and its management. Methods We performed searches for ‘oesophageal atresia’ and ‘esophageal atresia’ using the Google, Yahoo, and Bing engines to encompass both European and American spellings. We assessed the first 20 results of each search and excluded duplicates or unrelated pages. The DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation Code (HONcode) toolbar were utilized to assess the quality of information on each website. We evaluated readability with the Flesch reading ease (FRE) and the Flesch–Kincaid grade (FKG). Results Of the original 120 hits, 61 were excluded (51 duplicates, 10 unrelated). Out of 59 individual sites reviewed, only 13 sites were HONcode approved. The mean overall DISCERN score was 52.55 (range: 22–78). The mean DISCERN score for the search term ‘oesphageal atresia’ was 57 (range: 22–78) in comparison to 59.03 for ‘esophageal atresia’ (range: 27–78). Google search had the lowest overall mean DISCERN score at 54.83 (range: 35–78), followed by Yahoo at 58.03 (range: 22–78), and Bing with the highest overall mean score of 61.2 (range: 27–78). The majority of websites were graded excellent (≥63) or good (51–62), 43% and 27%, respectively; 20% were scored as fair (39–50), with 10% being either poor (27–38) or very poor (≤26). In terms of readability, the overall Flesch Reading Ease score was 33.02, and the overall Flesch–Kincaid grade level was 10.3. Conclusions The quality of freely available online information relating to esophageal atresia is generally good but may not be accessible to everyone due to being relatively difficult to read. We should direct parents towards comprehensive, high-quality, and easily readable information sources should they wish to supplement their knowledge about esophageal atresia and its management.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document