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

Gulati, Rishabh; Nawaz, Mohammad; Lam, Linh; Pyrsopoulos, Nikolaos

doi:10.1155/2017/3681989

“…While there have been assessments of the quality of websites on many key areas of health care, such as diabetes [23], obesity [24], and hypertension [25], and on surgical interventions [26,27], there is a dearth of assessment about the quality of web-based information pertaining to medications. Such assessments are necessary to inform clinicians of the quality of content likely to be accessed by their patients, who are particularly interested in the likelihood and nature of adverse side effects.…”

Section: Internet Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study

Ling,

de Pieri,

Loh

et al. 2024

Interact J Med Res

0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) represents the greatest burden of mortality worldwide, and statins are the most commonly prescribed drug in its management. A wealth of information pertaining to statins and their side effects is on the internet; however, to date, no assessment of the accuracy, credibility, and readability of this information has been undertaken. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the quality (accuracy, credibility, and readability) of websites likely to be visited by the general public undertaking a Google search of the side effects and use of statin medications. Methods Following a Google web search, we reviewed the top 20 consumer-focused websites with statin information. Website accuracy, credibility, and readability were assessed based on website category (commercial, not-for-profit, and media), website rank, and the presence or absence of the Health on the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) seal. Accuracy and credibility were assessed following the development of checklists (with 20 and 13 items, respectively). Readability was assessed using the Simple Measure of Gobbledegook scores. Results Overall, the accuracy score was low (mean 14.35 out of 20). While side effects were comprehensively covered by 18 websites, there was little information about statin use in primary and secondary prevention. None of the websites met all criteria on the credibility checklist (mean 7.8 out of 13). The median Simple Measure of Gobbledegook score was 9.65 (IQR 8.825-10.85), with none of the websites meeting the recommended reading grade of 6, even the media websites. A website bearing the HONcode seal did not mean that the website was more comprehensive or readable. Conclusions The quality of statin-related websites tended to be poor. Although the information contained was accurate, it was not comprehensive and was presented at a reading level that was too difficult for an average reader to fully comprehend. As such, consumers risk being uninformed about this pharmacotherapy.

show abstract

“…Many studies have demonstrated that patient materials are often written above the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommendation of 6th grade reading level. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Ensuring that materials are readable is an essential first step, especially because more than one-third of Americans have basic or below basic literacy. 13 However, reading grade level alone does not capture if materials are accessible to patients.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Patient Education Materials for Colorectal Cancer

Kang

¹

,

Saunders

²

,

Carpenter‐Song

³

et al. 2021

Diseases of the Colon &Amp; Rectum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Patient education materials are created by professional organizations to inform patients about their disease and its treatment. However, it remains unclear if these materials are appropriate for patients. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to broadly evaluate the education materials for patients with colorectal cancer. DESIGN: Patient education materials from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the National Cancer Institute, and the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons were assessed quantitatively by using 1) the Flesch-Kincaid readability formula and 2) the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. The Patient Education Material Assessment Tool scores materials in 2 domains: understandability and actionability. These materials were further evaluated qualitatively via an exploratory focus group with patients and their caregivers (n = 5) and semi-structured interviews with board-certified/eligible colorectal surgeons (n = 10). SETTING: This study was conducted at academic centers and a regional professional society meeting. PARTICIPANTS: The mean patient age was 63. Most surgeons (8/10) practiced in an academic setting, and 4/10 were female. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were reading grade level and domain scores for the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool. Qualitative data were recorded, transcribed, and coded. Themes were generated through data interpretation and data reduction. RESULTS: Materials ranged from 7th to 11th grade reading level. National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored highest for understandability (92.2% ± 6.1%, mean ± SD), followed by National Cancer Institute (84.0% ± 6.6%) and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (82.2% ± 6.3%) materials. Actionability scores varied; the National Comprehensive Cancer Network materials scored 82.5% ± 1.7%, whereas the National Cancer Institute and American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons materials scored 23.3% ± 6.7% and 50.0% ± 8.2%. Critical gaps were identified in the content of these materials. Patients wanted more information about self-care, both emotional and physical. Specifically, patients sought details about postoperative bowel function. Whereas surgeons wanted information about the typical hospital course and recovery, all wanted materials to be customizable. LIMITATIONS: A limited number of materials were reviewed, and patient focus groups were exploratory. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly available printed education materials for colorectal cancer are written at a high reading grade level, vary in their usability, and neglect important details about postoperative recovery. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535. EVALUACIÓN DE MÉTODOS MIXTOS DE MATERIALES EDUCATIVOS PARA PACIENTES SOBRE CÁNCER COLORECTAL ANTECEDENTES: Los materiales educativos para pacientes son creados por organizaciones profesionales para informar a los pacientes sobre su enfermedad y su tratamiento. Sin embargo, no está claro si estos materiales son apropiados para los pacientes. OBJETIVO: Evaluar ampliamente los materiales para el cáncer colorrectal. DISEÑO: Los materiales educativos para pacientes de la Red Nacional Integral del Cáncer (NCCN), el Instituto Nacional del Cáncer (NCI) y la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Recto (ASCRS) se evaluaron cuantitativamente utilizando (1) la fórmula de legibilidad de Flesch-Kincaid y (2) la herramienta de evaluación de material educativo para pacientes. La Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes califica los materiales en dos dominios: comprensibilidad y viabilidad. Estos materiales fueron evaluados cualitativamente a través de un grupo de enfoque exploratorio con pacientes y sus cuidadores (n = 5) y entrevistas semiestructuradas con cirujanos colorrectales certificados o elegibles para certificación por el consejo (n = 10). ESCENARIO: Centros académicos y un encuentro regional de una sociedad profesional. PACIENTES: La edad media de los pacientes fue de 63 años. La mayoría de los cirujanos (8/10) practicaban en un entorno académico, y 4/10 eran mujeres. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Nivel de grado de lectura y puntajes de dominios para la Herramienta de evaluación de materiales educativos para pacientes. Los datos cualitativos se registraron, transcribieron y codificaron. Los temas se generaron mediante la interpretación y la reducción de datos. RESULTADOS: Los materiales variaron desde el nivel de lectura del 7° al 11° grado. Los materiales de la NCCN obtuvieron la puntuación más alta en comprensibilidad (92.2 ± 6.1%, media ± DE), seguidos por los materiales de NCI (84.0 ± 6.6%) y ASCRS (82.2 ± 6.3%). Los puntajes de viabilidad variaron; Los materiales de NCCN obtuvieron una puntuación de 82.5 ± 1.7%, mientras que los materiales de NCI y ASCRS obtuvieron una puntuación de 23.3 ± 6.7% y 50.0 ± 8.2%, respectivamente. Se identificaron lagunas críticas en el contenido de estos materiales. Los pacientes querían más información sobre el autocuidado, tanto emocional como físico. Específicamente, los pacientes buscaron detalles sobre la función intestinal posoperatoria. Mientras que los cirujanos querían información sobre el curso hospitalario típico y la recuperación, y todos querían que los materiales fueran personalizables. LIMITACIONES: Se revisó una cantidad limitada de materiales y los grupos de enfoque de pacientes fueron exploratorios. CONCLUSIONES: Los materiales educativos impresos comúnmente disponibles para el cáncer colorrectal están escritos a un alto nivel de grado de lectura, varían en su usabilidad y omiten detalles importantes sobre la recuperación postoperatoria. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B535.

show abstract

“…Literacy is measured by the Flesch reading ease score and the Flesch-Kinkaid grade level (FGL). A low Flesch reading ease score (FRE) of less than 60 and an FGL greater than 7 indicate that the MIS was too difficult for the average adult [4].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%