Readability Assessment of Online Urology Patient Education Materials

Colaco, Marc; Svider, Peter F.; Agarwal, Nitin; Eloy, Jean Anderson; Jackson, Imani M.

doi:10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255

Cited by 99 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with the results of previous English and German PEM readability assessments [11][12][13]16], only 13.8% (12/87 assessments; Table. 2) met the NIH readability recommendations of a 7th-8th grade reading level [15].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Several studies have investigated the readability of PEM in different fields of medicine [9,10]. Urological [11,12] and non-urological [13] trials concluded that the readability of English written information material was more difficult than the level of difficulty recommended by the American Medical Association [14] and National Institutes of Health (NIH) [15]. A similar conclusion was drawn for German-language hospital websites of surgical and ear, nose and throat departments, which addresses a target audience of over 100 million German native speakers [16,17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Readability Assessment of Patient Education Material Published by German-Speaking Associations of Urology

Betschart

Zumstein²,

Ali³

et al. 2017

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the readability and comprehensibility of web-based German-language patient education material (PEM) issued by urological associations. Materials and Methods: German PEM available in June 2017 was obtained from the European Association of Urology (EAU), German (DGU), Swiss (SGU) and Austrian (ÖGU) Association of Urology websites. Each educational text was analyzed separately using 4 well-established readability assessment tools: the Amstad Test (AT), G-SMOG (SMOG), Wiener Sachtextformel (WS) and the Lesbarkeitsindex (LIX). Results: The EAU has issued PEM on 8 topics, the DGU 22 and the SGU 5. The ÖGU refers to the PEMs published by the DGU. Calculation of grade levels (SMOG, WS, LIX) showed readability scores of the 7th-14th grades. The easiest readability was found for materials on Nocturia and Urinary Incontinence issued by the EAU. Kidney Cancer and Infertility, issued by the DGU had the hardest readability. The EAU achieved the best median AT score, followed by the SGU, and the DGU. Conclusion: Remarkable differences between readability were found for the PEMs issued by EAU, DGU and SGU. Materials published by the EAU were the easiest to read. Improving the readability of certain PEMs is of crucial importance to meet patient needs and act in the interests of a growing, self-informing German-speaking patient community.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability Assessment of Patient Education Material Published by German-Speaking Associations of Urology

Betschart

Zumstein²,

Ali³

et al. 2017

Urol Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Colaco et al analyzed the readability of online patient education materials from the American Urological Association and from 17 academic urology departments located in the northeastern U.S. 13 Their results were similar to our own. None of the online resources demonstrated mean readability levels consistent with guideline recommendations and most required at least a university level education in order to interpret.…”

Section: Readability Of Patient Information Materialssupporting

confidence: 83%

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

Dalziel¹,

Leveridge²,

Steele³

et al. 2016

CUAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 before and 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 and sexual 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 per sentence 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.

show abstract

“…5,11 Despite these guidelines, many of the Web sites of several national physician organizations, including medical, surgical, and subspecialty fields, have provided texts at a level too complex for most of the public to comprehend. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Recent reports that evaluate the readability of patient education resources on radiology Web sites, sponsored by major organizations such as the Radiological Society of North America, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Interventional Radiology, and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiologic Society of Europe, demonstrated that the material offered to the public is written at a level well above the AMA and the National Institutes of Health recommendations. 24,25 In this study, we investigated the level of readability of all patient education resources on the American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) Web site by using a variety of quantitative readability-assessment scales.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Are We Effectively Informing Patients? A Quantitative Analysis of On-Line Patient Education Resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology

Hansberry¹,

Agarwal²,

Gonzales³

et al. 2014

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:The ubiquitous use of the Internet by the public in an attempt to better understand their health care requires the on-line resources written at an appropriate level to maximize comprehension for the average user. The National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association recommend on-line patient education resources written at a third-to-seventh grade level. We evaluated the readability of the patient education resources provided on the Web site of the American Society of Neuroradiology

show abstract

Readability Assessment of Online Urology Patient Education Materials

Abstract: Urological online patient education materials are written above the recommended reading level. They may need to be simplified to facilitate better patient understanding of urological topics.

Cited by 99 publications

References 18 publications

Readability Assessment of Patient Education Material Published by German-Speaking Associations of Urology

Readability Assessment of Patient Education Material Published by German-Speaking Associations of Urology

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

Are We Effectively Informing Patients? A Quantitative Analysis of On-Line Patient Education Resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About