Readability of Orthopaedic Oncology-related Patient Education Materials Available on the Internet

Shah, Akash K.; Yi, Paul H.; Stein, Andrew

doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-15-00324

Cited by 24 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data suggest two main findings: that the average readability of online patient educational materials available through PM&R professional societies exceeds the recommended 8th‐grade level, and that approximately 17% of articles are written at or below this level, which is on par with the low frequency observed in readability analysis of orthopedic specialty websites . To our knowledge, this is the first study evaluating readability of PM&R patient education materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross‐Sectional Study

Han

Carayannopoulos

2019

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Patients are increasingly using the Internet to access health information. Patient awareness and education are crucial to advancing the field of PM&R, but many U.S. adults have insufficient health literacy skills to read and understand patient education materials (PEM), frequently written at the 10th‐15th‐grade level. Reading ability is key for health literacy, but no previous research has assessed the readability of PEM provided by professional PM&R societies. Objectives Evaluate whether the readability of PM&R PEM meets the NIH‐recommended eighth‐grade reading level; compare readability of PM&R PEM to two commonly accessed patient resources for sports and rehabilitation medicine topics, handouts from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), whose readability has been previously analyzed. Design Cross‐sectional study. Methods Publicly accessible entries within the patient education section of websites sanctioned by professional PM&R societies, as well as the AAOS and AAFP, were analyzed for readability using two validated and widely used tools, the Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formulas. Comparative statistics were performed between the three surveyed specialties. Main Outcome Measures FKGL and SMOG readability scores, which estimate U.S. grade level, or years of education, needed to comprehend text. Results A total of 167 online PM&R resources were identified and compared to 94 articles from AAOS and 65 from AAFP. Mean SMOG and FKGL levels exceeded the eighth‐grade level for both PM&R (SMOG‐9.71, 95% CI 9.42‐10.0; FKGL‐10.35, 95% CI 9.99‐10.7) and AAOS (SMOG‐9.15, 95% CI 8.96‐9.35; FKGL‐9.51, 95% CI 9.29‐9.74), whereas AAFP met readability guidelines for both measures (SMOG‐7.00, 95% CI 6.74‐7.27; FKGL‐6.76, 95% CI 6.45‐7.07). SMOG and FKGL scores suggested significantly higher reading difficulty for PM&R compared to AAOS (SMOG P = .017; FKGL P = .0001) and AAFP (SMOG P < .0001; FKGL P < .0001). Results indicated that 17% of PM&R resources complied with NIH guidelines, vs 8% for AAOS and 83% for AAFP. Conclusions The average readability of PM&R PEM exceeds the NIH‐recommended and average U.S. adult eighth‐grade reading level. The physiatry community can make its patient materials more comprehensible and accessible for patients by providing resources at a more appropriate reading level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross‐Sectional Study

Han

Carayannopoulos

2019

PM&R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ideally, a high-quality patient information website should be developed by a credible source and display accurate information regarding diagnostic tests, treatment options, outcomes, and possible complications. Information should also be at a reading level that is comprehensible to an average patient, as recent studies have shown patient materials on the Internet to be written at a much higher level than many patients can comprehend [ 18 – 20 , 22 ]. The OrthoInfo site ( www.orthoinfo.aaos.org ), created by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), scored among the top five websites for HON score and content completeness.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of internet-based decision aids for shoulder arthritis: what are patients reading?

Somerson

Bois

Jeng

et al. 2018

BMC Musculoskelet Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to assess the source, quality, accuracy, and completeness of Internet-based information for shoulder arthritis.MethodsA web search was performed using three common Internet search engines and the top 50 sites from each search were analyzed. Information sources were categorized into academic, commercial, non-profit, and physician sites. Information quality was measured using the Health On the Net (HON) Foundation principles, content accuracy by counting factual errors and completeness using a custom template.ResultsAfter removal of duplicates and sites that did not provide an overview of shoulder arthritis, 49 websites remained for analysis. The majority of sites were from commercial (n = 16, 33%) and physician (n = 16, 33%) sources. An additional 12 sites (24%) were from an academic institution and five sites (10%) were from a non-profit organization. Commercial sites had the highest number of errors, with a five-fold likelihood of containing an error compared to an academic site. Non-profit sites had the highest HON scores, with an average of 9.6 points on a 16-point scale. The completeness score was highest for academic sites, with an average score of 19.2 ± 6.7 (maximum score of 49 points); other information sources had lower scores (commercial, 15.2 ± 2.9; non-profit, 18.7 ± 6.8; physician, 16.6 ± 6.3).ConclusionsPatient information on the Internet regarding shoulder arthritis is of mixed accuracy, quality, and completeness. Surgeons should actively direct patients to higher-quality Internet sources.

show abstract

“…Video sources and uploaders were categorized as follows: (1) academic (pertaining to authors or uploaders affiliated with research groups, universities, or colleges); (2) physician (independent physician or physician group without research, university, or college affiliation); (3) nonphysician (health professionals other than licensed medical doctors); (4) trainer; (5) medical source (content or animations from health websites); (6) patient; and (7) commercial. Content was categorized as follows: (1) exercise training, (2) disease-specific information, (3) patient experience, (4) surgical technique or approach, (5) nonsurgical management, and (6) advertisement. The VPI is a calculation derived from the following formula: Like ratio Â View ratio/100.…”

Section: Youtube Query and Video Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, many internet sources are not regulated or edited, resulting in the dissemination to patients of an overwhelming amount of content that may be low quality and inaccurate. [3][4][5][6] Therefore, it is imperative for physicians to be aware of and critically evaluate such resources to help educate patients and guide them through the management of their disease such that they are not misinformed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Online Video Resources Concerning Patient Education for the Meniscus: A YouTube-Based Quality-Control Study

Kunze

Krivicich

Verma

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

107

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Readability of Orthopaedic Oncology-related Patient Education Materials Available on the Internet

Abstract: Online patient education materials related to orthopaedic oncology appear to be written at a level above the comprehension ability of the average patient.

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross‐Sectional Study

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross‐Sectional Study

Quality of internet-based decision aids for shoulder arthritis: what are patients reading?

Quality of Online Video Resources Concerning Patient Education for the Meniscus: A YouTube-Based Quality-Control Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About