Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

Douglas, Alana; Kelly-Campbell, Rebecca J.

doi:10.1044/2018_aja-17-0095

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 108 publications

(197 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…17,18 Within otolaryngology, prior readability studies of PROMs have analyzed those used for audiology and dysphagia only. 1,19,20 No prior studies have evaluated H&N PROMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Readability of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are communication tools to help patients convey their disease experience to medical providers and guide management decisions. However, the utility of healthcare outcome measures is dependent on patient literacy and readability of PROMs. If written for a more advanced literacy level, they can misestimate symptoms and add significant barriers to care, especially in the underserved. However, readability of head and neck (H&N) oncology PROMs has not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability of H&N oncology PROMs to assess whether they meet recommended readability levels. Study Design: Bibliometric review. Methods: Three readability measures: Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and FORCAST were used to evaluate the readability level of commonly used H&N PROMs. PROMs with sixth grade readability level or lower were considered to meet the recommendations of health literacy experts. Results: Eight H&N oncology PROMs were reviewed. None of H&N PROMs met health literacy experts' and National Institutes of Health recommended reading levels. Gunning Fog consistently estimated easiest readability and FORCAST the most difficult. Conclusions: PROMs are important clinical tools that drive patient-centric care in H&N oncology. All H&N PROMs are written above recommended reading levels and do not meet suggested standards. Future PROMs should be written with easier readability to accurately convey patients' H&N oncology disease experiences.

show abstract

“…17,18 Within otolaryngology, prior readability studies of PROMs have analyzed those used for audiology and dysphagia only. 1,19,20 No prior studies have evaluated H&N PROMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent studies in other healthcare fields, including medical oncology and orthopedics, have measured readability scores with widely ranging results 17–18 . Within otolaryngology, prior readability studies of PROMs have analyzed those used for audiology and dysphagia only 1,19–20 . No prior studies have evaluated H&N PROMs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recent studies in other healthcare fields, including oncology, orthopedics, and audiology, have measured readability scores for field-specific PROMs with widely ranging results. [16][17][18] Within otolaryngology, primarily dysphagia-related PROMs have been evaluated. 19 Notably, there is a striking absence in the literature evaluating PROMs used in the evaluation of CRS or skull base pathologies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of patient‐reported outcome measures for chronic rhinosinusitis and skull base diseases

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Outcome measures in healthcare that presume a higher level of patient health and overall literacy may inadequately estimate the disease experiences of less‐educated patients and further disadvantage them. Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are widely used communication tools for clinical practice and are often used to evaluate and guide management for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and skull base diseases. However, their readability and subsequent incomprehensibility for patients have not been assessed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability of commonly used PROMs for these conditions and whether they meet recommended readability levels. Methods Three readability measures, Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and FORCAST were used in the evaluation of commonly used PROMs for CRS and skull base disease. PROMs with sixth‐grade readability level or lower were considered to meet health literacy experts' recommendations. Results A total of 11 PROMs were reviewed (8 CRS, 3 skull base). Gunning Fog consistently estimated the easiest readability, whereas FORCAST the most difficult. One hundred percent of CRS and 67% of skull base PROMs were above National Institutes of Health and health literacy experts' recommended reading levels. PROMs developed more recently had easier readability. Conclusion PROMs are important clinical tools in otolaryngology that help guide management of disease for improved patient‐centered care. Like many other fields of medicine, those used in otolaryngology are beyond recommended reading levels. Development of PROMs in the future should meet recommended readability levels to fully assess the disease experience of our patients. Level of Evidence 4 Laryngoscope, 130:2305–2310, 2020

show abstract

“…They allow for a time-efficient and structured assessment of symptoms and experience as well as facilitating the assessment of changes over time. Patient-reported outcome measures including questionnaires are an important part of patient-centred care, as they facilitate a deeper understanding of the effects of a condition on a patient's life (Douglas and Kelly-Campbell 2018). In order to gather complex information about the effects of a particular condition on one's life, it is important that the intended audience can easily read and understand the questionnaire.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, reading grade levels of 5 to 6 th grade (10-12 years old) are recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) (Weiss 2007) and 7 th to 8 th grade (12-14 years old) are recommended by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) (Medlineplus 2017). Studies reporting on readability for tinnitus questionnaires (Atcherson, Zraick, and Brasseux 2011), Auditory Processing Disorder questionnaires (Atcherson et al 2013), and Adult Audiology Rehabilitation outcome measures (Douglas and Kelly-Campbell 2018) indicate that readability of questionnaires and patient-reported outcome measures largely exceed the recommended reading levels mentioned above. These studies evaluated the overall readability of questionnaires, meaning that information about the variability in the readability of single items was not addressed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane corner: Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus

Brennan‐Jones

Thomas

Hoare

et al. 2019

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the overall readability of five currently available hyperacusis questionnaires and to assess the variability in readability of single items within each questionnaire. Design: Comparative study of five self-report hyperacusis questionnaires: (1) Geräuschüberempfindlichkeits-Fragebogen (GUF), (2) Noise Avoidance Questionnaire (NAQ), (3) Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ), (4) Sound Sensitive-Tinnitus Index (SSTI), and (5) Inventory of Hyperacusis Symptoms (IHS).Using well established readability formulas Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and FORCAST, in a computerised readability calculation software. Results: Reading levels calculated by each formula varied for every questionnaire. Readability scores ranged from 7.7th to 12.7th grade for overall readability depending on the questionnaire. This was higher than grade reading levels of 5-6th grade (10-12 years old) as recommended by the American Medical Association or 7-8th grade (12-14 years old) as recommended by the US National Institutes of Health. Single item readability analysis based on FKGL revealed that 32% to 70% of single items were written above the recommended grade levels. Conclusion: All five questionnaires are written at close to or exceeding the recommended grade levels. This requires attention from developers but also when interpreting the questionnaire scores obtained in clinic.

show abstract

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

Cited by 19 publications

References 108 publications

Readability of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology

Readability of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology

Readability of patient‐reported outcome measures for chronic rhinosinusitis and skull base diseases

Cochrane corner: Sound therapy (using amplification devices and/or sound generators) for tinnitus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About