Critical Quality and Readability Analysis of Online Patient Education Materials on Parotidectomy: A Cross-Sectional Study

2022 ◽  
pp. 000348942110666
Author(s):  
Elysia Miriam Grose ◽  
Emily YiQin Cheng ◽  
Marc Levin ◽  
Justine Philteos ◽  
Jong Wook Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Google Search ◽  
Online Patient Education

Purpose: Complications related to parotidectomy can cause significant morbidity, and thus, the decision to pursue this surgery needs to be well-informed. Given that information available online plays a critical role in patient education, this study aimed to evaluate the readability and quality of online patient education materials (PEMs) regarding parotidectomy. Methods: A Google search was performed using the term “parotidectomy” and the first 10 pages of the search were analyzed. Quality and reliability of the online information was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch-Reading Ease Score (FRE) were used to evaluate readability. Results: Thirty-five PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The average FRE score was 59.3 and 16 (46%) of the online PEMs had FRE scores below 60 indicating that they were fairly difficult to very difficult to read. The average grade level of the PEMs was above the eighth grade when evaluated with the FKGL. The average DISCERN score was 41.7, which is indicative of fair quality. There were no significant differences between PEMs originating from medical institutions and PEMs originating from other sources in terms of quality or readability. Conclusion: Online PEMs on parotidectomy may not be comprehensible to the average individual. This study highlights the need for the development of more appropriate PEMs to inform patients about parotidectomy.

scholarly journals An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. E. Wrigley Kelly ◽  
K. E. Murray ◽  
C. McCarthy ◽  
D. B. O’Shea
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Impact

AbstractHigh quality, readable health information is vital to mitigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to assess the quality and readability of online COVID-19 information using 6 validated tools. This is a cross-sectional study. “COVID-19” was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. Quality was evaluated using the DISCERN score, Journal of the American Medical Association benchmark criteria and Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Gunning-Fog Index. 41 websites were suitable for analysis. 9.8% fulfilled all JAMA criteria. Only one website was HONCode certified. Mean DISCERN score was 47.8/80 (“fair”). This was highest in websites published by a professional society/medical journal/healthcare provider. Readability varied from an 8th to 12th grade level. The overall quality of online COVID-19 information was “fair”. Much of this information was above the recommended 5th to 6th grade level, impeding access for many.

scholarly journals Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to nasal septoplasty

2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elysia M. Grose ◽  
Connor P. Holmes ◽  
Kaishan A. Aravinthan ◽  
Vincent Wu ◽  
John M. Lee
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Common Procedure ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Quality And Reliability ◽  
Google Search ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Online Patient Education ◽  
Nasal Septoplasty

Abstract Background Given that nasal septoplasty is a common procedure in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery, the objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on septoplasty. Methods A Google search was performed using eight different search terms related to septoplasty. Six different tools were used to assess the readability of included patient education materials. These included the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The DISCERN tool was used to assess quality and reliability. Results Eighty-five online patient education materials were included. The average Flesch-Reading Ease score for all patient education materials was 54.9 ± 11.5, indicating they were fairly difficult to read. The average reading grade level was 10.5 ± 2.0, which is higher than the recommended reading level for patient education materials. The mean DISCERN score was 42.9 ± 10.5 and 42% (36/85) of articles had DISCERN scores less than 39, corresponding to poor or very poor quality. Conclusion The majority of online patient education materials on septoplasty are written above the recommended reading levels and have significant deficiencies in terms of their quality and reliability. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the shortcomings of these resources and consider the impact they may have on patients’ decision making.

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.

Readability and Quality Assessment of Internet-Based Patient Education Materials Regarding Diabetic Foot Ulcers (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Michael Lee ◽  
Elysia Grose ◽  
Karen Cross
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Diabetic Foot ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Foot Ulcers ◽  
Diabetic Foot Ulcers ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Reading Grade Level ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Quality And Reliability ◽  
Online Patient Education

BACKGROUND While diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of diabetes, little is known about the content and readability of online patient education materials for diabetic foot ulcers. The recommended reading grade level for these materials is grade 6th - 8th. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on diabetic foot ulcers. METHODS A Google search was performed using four different search terms related to DFUs. Six different tools were used to assess the readability of included patient education materials. These included the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch-Reading Ease Score, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The DISCERN tool was used to assess quality and reliability RESULTS Fourty-one online patient education materials were included. The average Flesch-Reading Ease score for all patient education materials was 63.43±14.21, indicating a standard difficulty level of reading. The average reading grade level was 9.33±2.6, which is higher than the recommended reading level for patient education materials. The mean DISCERN score was 45.66±3.34 and 27% (11/41) of articles had DISCERN scores less than 39, corresponding to poor or very poor quality. CONCLUSIONS The majority of online patient education materials on diabetic foot ulcers are written above the recommended reading levels and have significant deficiencies in terms of their quality and reliability. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the shortcomings of these resources and consider the impact they may have on patients’ self-management.

scholarly journals Readability of Online Materials Related to Vocal Cord Leukoplakia

OTO Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473974X2110326
Author(s):  
Matthew Shneyderman ◽  
Grace E. Snow ◽  
Ruth Davis ◽  
Simon Best ◽  
Lee M. Akst
Keyword(s):  
Patient Education ◽  
Vocal Cord ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Entire Cohort ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Google Search

Objectives To assess readability and understandability of online materials for vocal cord leukoplakia. Study Design Review of online materials. Setting Academic medical center. Methods A Google search of “vocal cord leukoplakia” was performed, and the first 50 websites were considered for analysis. Readability was measured by the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were assessed by 2 independent reviewers with the PEMAT-P (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials). Unpaired t tests compared scores between sites aimed at physicians and those at patients, and a Cohen’s kappa was calculated to measure interrater reliability. Results Twenty-two websites (17 patient oriented, 5 physician oriented) met inclusion criteria. For the entire cohort, FRES, FKGL, and SMOG scores (mean ± SD) were 36.90 ± 20.65, 12.96 ± 3.28, and 15.65 ± 3.57, respectively, indicating that materials were difficult to read at a >12th-grade level. PEMAT-P understandability and actionability scores were 73.65% ± 7.05% and 13.63% ± 22.47%. Statistically, patient-oriented sites were more easily read than physician-oriented sites ( P < .02 for each of the FRES, FKGL, and SMOG comparisons); there were no differences in understandability or actionability scores between these categories of sites. Conclusion Online materials for vocal cord leukoplakia are written at a level more advanced than what is recommended for patient education materials. Awareness of the current ways that these online materials are failing our patients may lead to improved education materials in the future.

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.

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document