Readability assessment of the British Association of Dermatologists’ patient information leaflets

Hunt, William; Sofela, J; Mustapa, M.F. Mohd

doi:10.1111/ced.15012

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…PIL can be improved and made easier to read by using validated readability checker tools such as Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning fog index (GFI), Fry, FORCAST and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), 38 aiming for the national average reading age of 9-11 years. However, better satisfaction have been achieved by involving patients in co-design and evaluating impact.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-design of patient information leaflets for germline predisposition to cancer: recommendations for clinical practice from the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar Programme and the Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC)

Kohut,

Speight,

Young

et al. 2023

J Med Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTesting for germline pathogenic variants (GPVs) in cancer predisposition genes is increasingly offered as part of routine care for patients with cancer. This is often urgent in oncology clinics due to potential implications on treatment and surgical decisions. This also allows identification of family members who should be offered predictive genetic testing. In the UK, it is common practice for healthcare professionals to provide a patient information leaflet (PIL) at point of care for diagnostic genetic testing in patients with cancer, after results disclosure when a GPV is identified, and for predictive testing of at-risk relatives. Services usually create their own PIL, resulting in duplication of effort and wide variability regarding format, content, signposting and patient input in co-design and evaluation.MethodsRepresentatives from UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar programme and Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC) held a 2-day meeting with the aim of making recommendations for clinical practice regarding co-design of PIL for germline cancer susceptibility genetic testing. Lynch syndrome and haematological malignancies were chosen as exemplar conditions.ResultsMeeting participants included patient representatives including as co-chair, multidisciplinary clinicians and other experts from across the UK. High-level consensus for UK recommendations for clinical practice was reached on several aspects of PIL using digital polling, including that PIL should be offered, accessible, co-designed and evaluated with patients.ConclusionsRecommendations from the meeting are likely to be applicable for PIL co-design for a wide range of germline genetic testing scenarios.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-design of patient information leaflets for germline predisposition to cancer: recommendations for clinical practice from the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar Programme and the Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC)

Kohut,

Speight,

Young

et al. 2023

J Med Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study incorporates six of the most common indices surveyed from literature: the Flesch Kincaid reading ease (FKRE) test, the Flesch Kincaid grade level (FKGL) test, the Gunning Fog score (GFS), the Coleman Liau index (CLI), the Automated Readability Index (ARI), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. These indices are commonly used for readability analysis [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Excluding FKRE, the FKGL, GFS, CLI, ARI, and SMOG indices all estimate the minimum US grade level required to understand a text, albeit each index incorporates its unique syntactical characteristic.…”

Section: Readability Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Lower Back Pain Imaging: A Readability Analysis

Valentine,

Cottone,

Kramer

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The internet provides access to a myriad of educational health-related resources which are an invaluable source of information for patients. Lower back pain is a common complaint that is discussed extensively online. In this article, we aim to determine if the most commonly accessed articles about lower back pain imaging use language that can be understood by most patients. According to the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institute of Health (NIH), this corresponds to a sixth-grade reading level.Methods: Online searches were conducted from the most commonly used search engine, Google, to assess the present state of readability on radiograph imaging for LBP. Then the top 20 populated URL links from each search were utilized based on "health & fitness" search trends and click-through rates (CTRs). The readability of various websites was evaluated with WebFX online software that analyzed the unique websites' text when put into reader view on Firefox web browser version 116.0.3 (64-bit). Evaluation occurred via five common readability indices: the Automated Readability Index (ARI), the Coleman Liau Index (CLI), the SMOG index, the Gunning Fog Score Index (GFSI), and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level Index (FKGLI). In addition, the Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Index (FKREI) was also used but was excluded from the calculation due to its measuring scale outside of US grade levels. The number of samples was analyzed via health and fitness-specific CTR from an open-access database from July 2022 to July 2023. This was used to calculate the number of persons clicking and visiting positional URLs (first URL to the 20th URL) from each unique keyword search and the rational criteria for selecting the first 20 websites for each query.Results: Online material that included LBP imaging information was calculated to have an overall readability score of 10.745 out of the 23 websites obtained from unique searches. The range was a mean readability score of 8 to 14. Notably, 17 websites were excluded from a total of 40 websites due to duplication of the same data (URLs that resulted from both unique searches) and accessibility requiring payment (specifically, an UpToDate link). A readability score of 10.745 refers to an 11th-grade reading level. That is to say, the most commonly visited sites on Google that contain information about lower back pain imaging are, on average, five grade levels higher than the sixth-grade reading level recommended by the AMA and the NIH.Conclusions: Most internet content regarding lower back pain imaging is written at a reading level that is above the recommended limit defined by the AMA and NIH. To improve education about lower back pain imaging and the patient-physician relationship, we recommend guiding patients to online material that contains a reading level at the sixth-grade level as suggested by the AMA and NIH.

show abstract

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma

Shah

Mahajan²,

Oydanich³

et al. 2023

Ophthalmology Glaucoma

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Readability assessment of the British Association of Dermatologists’ patient information leaflets

Cited by 7 publications

References 13 publications

Co-design of patient information leaflets for germline predisposition to cancer: recommendations for clinical practice from the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar Programme and the Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC)

Co-design of patient information leaflets for germline predisposition to cancer: recommendations for clinical practice from the UK Cancer Genetics Group (UKCGG), Cancer Research UK (CRUK) funded CanGene-CanVar Programme and the Association of Genetic Nurse Counsellors (AGNC)

Lower Back Pain Imaging: A Readability Analysis

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About