Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement

Kakazu, Rafael; Schumaier, Adam P.; Minoughan, Chelsea E.; Grawe, Brian M.

doi:10.1177/2325967118805386

Cited by 19 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings are in accordance with other domains of orthopedic surgery, which have also demonstrated poor readability for patient educational materials. 4 , 5 , 11 , 13 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 24 In the setting of hip preservation–related educational materials, Parsa et al identified a statistically weak negative correlation between orthopedic institutional rank (ρ = −0.21) and readability. 15 Conversely, the current study was not able to confirm these notions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specific equations for these readability metrics have been detailed in previous studies and are displayed in Table I . 11 , 15 All of these scores, with the exception of the Flesch Reading Ease, provide an output indicating reading difficulty based on grade level (eg, score of 8 equates to 8 th -grade reading level). A linear regression analysis was used to generate variance inflation factors, with values ≥ 10 indicating collinearity between various readability scores.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Importantly, academic orthopedic centers are one of the primary contributors to accurate online information for patients. Expectedly, previous studies have analyzed the readability of educational resources from leading orthopedic organizations 4 , 5 , 11 , 13 , 16 , 20 , 24 and orthopedic academic centers for various pathologies. 15 , 19 However, to the authors’ knowledge, no previous study has investigated the readability of educational materials of academic centers for shoulder arthroplasty.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions

Stelzer¹,

Wellington²,

Trudeau³

et al. 2022

JSES International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous studies have demonstrated that online patient educational materials are written at reading levels too advanced for the average patient. The average American reads at the eighth-grade reading level. To date, the readability of online educational material of academic centers for shoulder arthroplasty has not been analyzed. Methods Online patient educational materials from the top 25 orthopedic institutions, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, were assessed utilizing the following readability assessments: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, Automated Readability Index, FORCAST, and the New Dale and Chall Readability. All of these scores, with the exception of the Flesch Reading Ease, provide an output indicating reading difficulty based on grade level. Correlations between academic institutional ranking and FK scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Lastly, additional factors including geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities that may impact institutional readability scores (as determined by FK) were evaluated. Results Only 16.0% of the top 25 institutions included online material at or below the eighth-grade reading level. Moreover, half of the online resources evaluated (those with FK score ≥9.3) were not at a suitable reading level for more than two-thirds of the general United States population (∼70%). Overall, the composite mean scores were 9.5 ± 2.1 for FK, 52.8 ± 9. for 4 Flesch Reading Ease, 12.2 ± 2.4 for Gunning Fog, 11.6 ± 1.8 for Coleman-Liau, 12.3 ± 1.7 for Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, 9.6 ± 2.6 for Automated Readability, 11.1 ± 0.6 for FORCAST, and 5.9 ± 0.6 for New Dale and Chall. There was no correlation between institutional ranking and FK scores (ρ = −0.15; P = .946). Geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities were not significantly associated with readability. Conclusion Shoulder arthroplasty online patient educational material at top-ranked orthopedic institutions have poor readability and are likely not suitable for the majority of patients in the United States.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions

Stelzer¹,

Wellington²,

Trudeau³

et al. 2022

JSES International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…32 Patients are sometimes faced with the challenges of understanding and remembering the information in MPIs especially due to the verbosity of the text and usage of technical terms. 33 The average number of words per MPI in this study was 1100. This is comparable with the finding of Joseph et al 6 in Jos Nigeria where the 66 MPIs evaluated had mean word count > 900, but different from the average of 2000 words per MPI reported for German MPIs with a mean of 114.1 difficult words.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Readability of Medication Package Inserts Accompanying Prescription Drugs and Conformity of the Package Inserts Information with Regulatory Requirements

Showande¹,

Babalola²

2022

IJOPP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Medication package inserts (MPIs) provides patients with appropriate information on the rational use of drugs. This study evaluated the level of conformity of MPIs with the regulatory drug labelling requirements and determined the readability of selected prescription MPIs. Methods: One hundred and fifty-six MPIs of commonly used and prescribed antilipidemics, anticonvulsants, anti-diabetes, antiarthritis and antihypertensives in Nigeria were retrieved from four pharmacies. The MPIs were evaluated on the availability of 20 items drug labelling requirements for prescription drugs by the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control (NAFDAC). The readability of 31 randomly selected MPIs was assessed with seven readability measures. Primary outcomes were percentage conformity with the labelling requirements and reading grade level of the MPIs. Secondary outcomes were the MPIs sentence characteristics. Results: The percentage conformity with NAFDAC drug requirements of the MPIs ranged from 82.9% to 89.6%. All the MPIs included information on active ingredient(s), adverse drug reactions, and indications. Few MPIs, 46.8% had section on product net content and 53 (34.0%) omitted information on overdose. The reading grade level for the MPIs was 14.55 ± 1.71 (undergraduate level). Most of the MPIs, 25 (80.6%), were very difficult to read. Conclusion: The percentage conformity of the MPIs with NAFDAC drug labelling requirements was high though few vital information were missing in some MPIs. Majority of the MPIs were very difficult to read. The regulatory authority may need to optimize MPIs readability and conformity of content with drug labelling requirements prior to marketing.

show abstract

“…This gap continues to grow along with rapid advances in genomic testing technologies that can offer accurate, molecular diagnoses to those previously undiagnosed (Kole & Faurisson 2009; Talwar, Tseng, Foster, Xu, & Chen, 2017). Reliable resources regarding basic genetic concepts, including testing and diagnosis, are available but are generally not targeted to the RD community and are often unreliable or unclear (Aaronson, Joshua, & Boss, 2018; Badiu et al, 2017; Kakazu, Schumaier, Minoughan, & Grawe, 2018; Schoof & Wallace 2014). Healthcare providers may not be equipped to answer genetics‐related questions that arise throughout a patient's RD journey (Litzkendorf et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding genetic learning needs of people affected by rare disease

Quinn

Davis

Yee³

et al. 2020

Journal of Genetic Counseling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly 350 million people worldwide are affected by a rare disease (RD) and ~80% of RDs have a genetic type, underscoring the need for access to reliable genomics education. Patient assistance in resource development can help ensure content is appropriate. The aim of this study was to define the needs and practical usage of the RD community to inform the scope and content of an online genetic course targeted toward the entire RD ecosystem. A high-level online survey (OS) was disseminated to 586 RD patients and family members/caregivers. A total of 251 individuals responded to the OS. Eight respondents were invited to participate in a follow-up focus group (FG). Nearly 87% of OS respondents have made efforts previously to learn more about genetics and 95.6% indicated a current interest in genetic education. Navigating healthcare systems, information sharing, and advocacy support were driving factors for this desire. Respondents indicated difficulty finding information on gene function, genetic testing, disease pathogenesis, and scientific advances. FG outcomes dove deeper into psychological needs including reducing emotional burden, alleviating fear of the unknown and seeking hope. Research identified high levels of interest in genetic education across all stages of the RD journey. Key themes identified in this study may help guide genetic counselors as they create their own patient and family-facing content.

show abstract

Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement

Cited by 19 publications

References 17 publications

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions

Readability of Medication Package Inserts Accompanying Prescription Drugs and Conformity of the Package Inserts Information with Regulatory Requirements

Understanding genetic learning needs of people affected by rare disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About