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.

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.

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.

scholarly journals A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nandita S. Mani ◽  
Terri Ottosen ◽  
Megan Fratta ◽  
Fei Yu
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Health Departments ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Public Health Departments ◽  
Material Type ◽  
Information Materials

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the public’s need for quality health information that is understandable. This study aimed to identify (1) the extent to which COVID-19 messaging by state public health departments is understandable, actionable, and clear; (2) whether materials produced by public health departments are easily readable; (3) relationships between material type and understandability, actionability, clarity, and reading grade level; and (4) potential strategies to improve public health messaging around COVID-19. Methods: Based on US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics from June 30, 2020, we identified the ten states with the most COVID-19 cases and selected forty-two materials (i.e., webpages, infographics, and videos) related to COVID-19 prevention according to predefined eligibility criteria. We applied three validated health literacy tools (i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, CDC Clear Communication Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) to assess material understandability, actionability, clarity, and readability. We also analyzed correlations between scores on the three health literacy tools and material types.Results: Overall, COVID-19 materials had high understandability and actionability but could be improved in terms of clarity and readability. Material type was significantly correlated with understandability, actionability, and clarity. Infographics and videos received higher scores on all tools.Conclusions: Based on our findings, we recommend public health entities apply a combination of these tools when developing health information materials to improve their understandability, actionability, and clarity. We also recommend using infographics and videos when possible, taking a human-centered approach to information design, and providing multiple modes and platforms for information delivery.

Readability and Suitability of Spanish-Language Hearing Aid User Guides

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Laura Gaeta ◽  
Edward Garcia ◽  
Valeria Gonzalez
Keyword(s):  
Health Literacy ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Spanish Language ◽  
Hispanic Population ◽  
English Only ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Suitability Assessment ◽  
Low Health Literacy ◽  
Readability Formula

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability and suitability of Spanish-language hearing aid user guides. Method Hearing aid user guides in English and Spanish were downloaded for analysis. Readability for the English guides was calculated using the Flesch Reading Ease Scale and the Flesch–Kincaid Readability Formula, and readability for the Spanish guides was calculated using the Fernandez–Huerta and Spaulding Formula and Fry Graph. The Suitability Assessment of Materials was used to rate the suitability of each Spanish and English pair of hearing aid user guides. Results Of the nine manufacturers that had materials available in English, only five had guides available in Spanish. Although readability for the Spanish and English user guides was similar, both guides were written, on average, at the eighth grade level. Suitability for the analyzed Spanish and English user guides was 78% and 80%, respectively. Conclusions Spanish-language hearing aid user guides were lacking in readability and suitability. Given that patients with limited proficiency in English, including the Hispanic population, are at risk for low health literacy, providers and manufacturers are encouraged to create more Spanish-language materials. User guides in both languages would benefit from revisions to improve readability and suitability. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14569497

scholarly journals P126 An analysis of the quality and readability of online information for osteoarthritis

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Murray ◽  
Timothy Murray ◽  
Candice Low ◽  
Anna O'Rourke ◽  
Douglas J Veale
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of disability in people over 65 years old. The readability of of online osteoarthritis information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online osteoarthritis information to be poor. This study reviews the quality of online information regarding osteoarthritis in 2018 using three validated scoring systems. Readability is reviewed for the first time, again using three validated tools. Methods The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analysed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons) and non-text pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning-Fog Index (GFI). Website quality was scored using the the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of HONcode certification, age of content, content producer and author characteristics were noted. Results 37 unique websites were suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7- 8th grade level. One (2.7%) website met all four JAMA Criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair”, comparing favourably with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONCode endorsed websites (43.2%) were of a statistically significantly higher quality. Conclusion Quality of online health information for OA is “fair”. 2.7% of websites met JAMA benchmark criteria for quality. Readability was equal to or more difficult than recommendations. HONcode certification was indicative of higher quality, but not readability. Disclosures K. Murray None. T. Murray None. C. Low None. A. O'Rourke None. D.J. Veale None.

scholarly journals Dupuytren's Contracture: The Readability of Online Information

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110564
Author(s):  
Shayan Hosseinzadeh ◽  
Philip Blazar ◽  
Brandon E Earp ◽  
Dafang Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Patient Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Dupuytren’S Contracture ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Dupuytren's Contracture ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
Grade Reading Level

Dupuytren's contracture is a common hand pathology for which consultation and treatment are largely at the patient's discretion. The objective of this study was to evaluate the readability of current online patient information regarding Dupuytren's contracture. The largest public search engines (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) were queried using the search terms “Dupuytren's contracture,” “Dupuytren's disease,” “Viking's disease,” and “bent finger.” The first 30 unique websites by each search were analyzed and readability assessed using five established algorithms: Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Flesch–Kincaid Grade level, Coleman–Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook grade level. Analysis of 73 websites demonstrated an average Flesch Reading Ease score of 48.6 ± 8.0, which corresponds to college reading level. The readability of websites ranged from 10.5 to 13.3 reading grade level. No article was written at or below the recommended sixth grade reading level. Information on the internet on Dupuytren's contracture is written at higher than recommended reading grade level. There is a need for high-quality patient information on Dupuytren's contracture at appropriate reading grade levels for patients of various health literacy backgrounds. Hospitals, universities, and academic organizations focused on the development of readable online information should consider patients’ input and preferences.

scholarly journals An Analysis of the Readability of Educational Materials on the Consumer Webpage of a Health Professional Organization: Considerations for Practice

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naudia Falconer ◽  
E. Reicherter ◽  
Barbara Billek-Sawhney ◽  
Steven Chesbro
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Professional Organization ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Site Evaluation ◽  
American Physical

The readability level of many patient education materials is too high for patients to comprehend, placing the patient’s health at risk. Since health professionals often recommend Internet-based patient education resources, they must ensure that the readability of information provided to consumers is at an appropriate level. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine the readability of educational brochures found on the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) consumer website. Methods: Fourteen educational brochures on the APTA website in March 2008 were analyzed using the following assessments: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Fry Readability Formula, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Checklist for Patient Education Materials, and Consumer Health Web Site Evaluation Checklist. Results: According to the Flesch-Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease, over 90% of the brochures were written at greater than a sixth grade level. The mean reading level was grade 10.2 (range = 3.1 to 12) with a Reading Ease score between 31.5 to 79.9. Using the SMOG formula, the brochures had a mean reading level of grade 11.5 (range = 9 to 13). The Fry Readability showed that 85% of the brochures were written higher than a sixth grade level, with a mean reading level of grade 9.5 (range = 6 to 14). Conclusion: Findings suggest that most of the consumer education information available on the website of this health professional organization had readability scores that were too high for average consumers to read.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document