Readability of online patient education materials for velopharyngeal insufficiency

Xie, Deborah X.; Wang, Ray Y.; Chinnadurai, Sivakumar

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.09.016

Cited by 14 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, OER might not be accessible to English learners who do not read English fluently. This finding supports the results of other research studies on readability of online materials conducted in the field of online healthcare education (Betschart et al, 2017;Kher, Johnson & Griffith, 2017;Sanghvi et al, 2012;Xie, Wang & Chinnadurai, 2018). While those studies were aimed at English native speakers, they also found that the language used was too difficult for an average patient/reader.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…These studies (e.g. Betschart et al, 2017;Kher, Johnson & Griffith, 2017;Sanghvi et al, 2012;Xie, Wang & Chinnadurai, 2018) looked at readability assessment of online health materials by triangulating the analysis of the metrics produced by a range of readability formulas. All of these studies found the language of online health materials too complex for the average native English reader.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies of linguistic accessibility have been conducted in areas such as freely available online patient education materials (e.g. Kher, Johnson & Griffith, 2017;Xie, Wang & Chinnadurai, 2018), however these resources are not OER and reflect concerns of medical, rather than educational outcomes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Accessibility of Open Educational Resources: how well are they suited for English learners?

Rets

Coughlan

Stickler

et al. 2020

Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open Educational Resources aim to offer learning to all, yet the language level used in resources could be a barrier to many potential learners. This paper examines the readability of 200 OER courses in English from two major OER course platforms. We compared the means of readability metrics between these OER courses at different educational levels and subject categories that the platforms offer using inferential statistics as well as cluster analyses. Results prove that there is a progression of difficulty between lower and higher educational levels with introductory courses being easier to read. However, the analysis also highlighted that more than 86% of the courses require an advanced level of English language proficiency. On the other hand, subject matter does not appear to be linked with the readability of the courses.This study contributes further to the current discussion of the inclusiveness of OER and the factors that hinder its universal use. The study addresses a gap in the literature as, to our knowledge, no other studies have analysed the linguistic accessibility of OER English learners and consideration of the meaning of the educational levels assigned to OER courses has been limited.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Accessibility of Open Educational Resources: how well are they suited for English learners?

Rets

Coughlan

Stickler

et al. 2020

Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These sources are consistent with other otolaryngologic syndromes and facial plastic procedures. 5,17,20,22,[32][33][34] This heterogeneity highlights the lack of regulation over which kinds of organizations are able to post patient-facing health information. There are advantages to the current unregulated system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality-Based Evaluation of Patient-Facing Online Education Materials Regarding Facial Filler Procedures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Injectable facial fillers have become tremendously more popular in recent years, and the Internet offers a proportional amount of consumer-facing educational material. This study sought to explore the quality of these online materials. The top 20 Web sites offering educational materials about facial filler were identified via Google search and sorted by source: Medical Professional Boards, Hospitals and Providers, Medical News and Reference, and Fashion. The materials were assessed for overall quality with the validated DISCERN instrument. The authors also assessed understandability and actionability (Patient Education Material Assessment Tool - PEMAT), accuracy, comprehensiveness, and readability (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease). The mean DISCERN score was 46.9 ± 7.6, which is considered “fair” quality educational material; above “poor,” but below “good” and “excellent.” Understandability and actionability scores were low, particularly with respect to visual aids. The materials were generally accurate (76–99%), but scored poorly in comprehensiveness, as 15% failed to mention any risks/adverse effects and only 35% mentioned cost. On average, readability was at an 11th grade level, far more complex than ideal (< 6th grade level). Information disseminated from seemingly reputable sources such as professional boards and hospitals/providers were not of higher quality or superior in any of the above studied domains. In conclusion, online educational materials related to injectable facial fillers are of subpar quality, including those from academic and professional organizations. Visual aids were particularly weak. The facial rejuvenation community should make a concerted effort to set a higher standard for disseminating such information.

show abstract

“…10,11 Unfortunately, despite the recommendations by the AMA and NIH, health information remains almost universally above the average reading level of the general population across all medical specialties. [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Even if the recommended reading levels were met, one-fifth of the population's reading level remains at the fifth-grade level or below.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of the Readability, Adequacy, and Suitability of Online Patient Education Resources for Benign Vascular Tumours Using the DISCERN Instrument

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This study aims to assess the quality and readability of Internet-based patient resources for vascular tumours in order to understand which areas require improvement. Methods: A World Wide Web search was performed, in addition to a literature review using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and EMBASE. Any material that contained information on vascular tumours pertaining to patient education was included. We evaluated resources with DISCERN and Flesch Reading Ease scores when applicable. The language of publication was restricted to English and French. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018087885). Results: A total of 117 online resources were screened, with 73 resources included in the final analysis. The overall DISCERN rating for the patient resources was 1.8 (0.8). The majority of online resources failed to depict the entire spectrum of benign vascular tumours. The mean Flesch score was 36 (19), which translates to a college-level readability. Conclusion: The majority of resources were not adequate or comprehensive and were written at a much higher level than the average reader would be expected to comprehend.

show abstract

Readability of online patient education materials for velopharyngeal insufficiency

Cited by 14 publications

References 16 publications

Accessibility of Open Educational Resources: how well are they suited for English learners?

Accessibility of Open Educational Resources: how well are they suited for English learners?

Quality-Based Evaluation of Patient-Facing Online Education Materials Regarding Facial Filler Procedures

Assessment of the Readability, Adequacy, and Suitability of Online Patient Education Resources for Benign Vascular Tumours Using the DISCERN Instrument

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About