Readability of Patient Education Materials From the Web Sites of Orthopedic Implant Manufacturers

Yi, Meghan M.; Yi, Paul H.; Hussein, Khalil I.; Cross, Michael B.; Valle, Craig J. Della

doi:10.1016/j.arth.2017.07.003

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our study has the advantage of evaluating educational materials with all four of the aforementioned tools. In addition, studies have evaluated the patient education material from national orthopaedic organizations, 3,[13][14][15][16] from orthopaedic implant manufacturers, 40 and from a handful of select academic centers, 17 but our study has the benefit of evaluating the resources from the top 20 orthopaedic academic centers. This decreases selection bias, making our results more generalizable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Hip Preservation–related Patient Education Materials From Leading Orthopaedic Academic Centers in the United States and Description of a Novel Video Assessment Tool

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The readability, reliability, and quality of online hip preservation-related patient education materials from the top 20 orthopaedic academic centers in the United States were evaluated. Methods: The patient educational materials were evaluated with the following assessment tools: Flesch-Kincaid (FK) readability test, Flesch Reading Ease formula, LIDA instrument, and DISCERN tool. Videos were assessed using the Patient Educational Video Assessment Tool (PEVAT), an author-developed scoring system. Results: A total of 121 educational items were reviewed. Median (interquartile range) or mean 6 SD of the FK level, Flesch Reading Ease, LIDA, and DISCERN scores were 11.00 (3.00), 47.32 6 12.14, 41.00 (6.00), and 64.00 (7.00), respectively. Higher ranking was correlated with higher FK (r = 20.21, P value = 0.034), higher DISCERN score (r = 20.39, P value , 0.005), and a lower PEVAT score (r = 0.61, P value = 0.034). The PEVAT score found that 83% of videos were classified as high quality.Discussion: An analysis of the hip preservation patient education text articles found low readability. Overall, high ranking was associated with poorer readability, higher quality text content, and lower quality video content. Video content was found to be predominantly of high quality. Improving the educational accessibility and effect of hip preservation-related topics may result in improved treatment outcomes. D eveloping technologies have revolutionized communication between health professionals and patients, completely changing patient education. With the exponential growth in web-based, health-related information, patients can access information readily; however, concerns exist regarding the relevance, readability, and accuracy of information. [1][2][3] Health literacy is a predictor of the overall patient health status,

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Hip Preservation–related Patient Education Materials From Leading Orthopaedic Academic Centers in the United States and Description of a Novel Video Assessment Tool

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies have used the Flesch-Kincaid score to evaluate readability. 11,20 In the current study, we used multiple measures of readability in addition to Flesch-Kincaid, including Coleman-Liau, New Dale-Chall, FOR-CAST, Fry, Gunning Fog, Raygor, SMOG, ARI, and New ARI. All reported reading grade levels were significantly higher than the recommended eighth-grade reading level.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[5][6][7]11,14 Readability is commonly assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score. 11,20 This score is easy to interpret and is incorporated into commonly used word processing software. However, there are other readability scales available, including the Coleman-Liau Index, New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Readability Formula, Gunning Fog Index, Raygor Readability Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Automated Readability Index (ARI), and New Automated Readability Index (New ARI).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement

Kakazu

Schumaier

Minoughan

et al. 2018

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Appropriate education on the disease processes associated with orthopaedic pathology can affect patient expectations and functional outcome.Hypothesis:Patient education resources from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) are too complex for comprehension by the average orthopaedic patient.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM were analyzed with software that provided 10 readability scores as well as opportunities for improving readability. The readability scores were compared with the recommended eighth-grade reading level.Results:A total of 39 patient education resources were identified and evaluated. The mean ± SD reading grade-level scores were as follows: Coleman-Liau Index, 12.5 ± 1.11; New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, 10.9 ± 1.37; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, 9.9 ± 1.06; FORCAST Readability Formula, 11.4 ± 0.51; Fry Readability Formula, 12.8 ± 2.79; Gunning Fog Index, 11.9 ± 1.37; Raygor Readability Index, 13.1 ± 2.37; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, 12.3 ± 0.90; Automated Readability Index, 11.2 ± 1.18; and New Automated Readability Index, 10.6 ± 1.27. After averaging the reading grade-level scores, only 1 patient education resource was found to be written at an 8th- to 9th-grade level, and 14 (36%) were written above a 12th-grade level. All scores were significantly different from the eighth-grade level (P < .0065). The percentage of complex words and long words were 19.6% ± 2.67% and 41.4% ± 3.18%, respectively.Conclusion:Patient education resources provided by the AOSSM are at a significantly higher reading level than recommended. Simple changes can drastically improve these scores to increase health literacy and possibly outcome.

show abstract

“…The application of these editing techniques reflects the most often cited techniques for improving readability, which include replacing complex medical jargon with simpler terms and shortening sentence length to 10-15 words per sentnces. 2 , 3 , 8 , 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 Critical content was described as medical information necessary for patient understanding of the described knee pathology and determined by the author who originally collected the PEMs (S.H.). Individuals determining critical content are preferably practicing orthopaedic surgeons; however, critical content also can be determined by individuals training within the field of orthopaedic surgery.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing the Use of Complex Words and Reducing Sentence Length to <15 Words Improves Readability of Patient Education Materials Regarding Sports Medicine Knee Injuries

Hanish¹,

Cherian²,

Baumann³

et al. 2023

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Readability of Patient Education Materials From the Web Sites of Orthopedic Implant Manufacturers

Cited by 15 publications

References 26 publications

Evaluation of Hip Preservation–related Patient Education Materials From Leading Orthopaedic Academic Centers in the United States and Description of a Novel Video Assessment Tool

Evaluation of Hip Preservation–related Patient Education Materials From Leading Orthopaedic Academic Centers in the United States and Description of a Novel Video Assessment Tool

Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement

Reducing the Use of Complex Words and Reducing Sentence Length to <15 Words Improves Readability of Patient Education Materials Regarding Sports Medicine Knee Injuries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About