The Readability of Patient Education Materials Pertaining to Gastrointestinal Procedures

Abstract

Introduction. Due to the ubiquity and ease of access of Internet, patients are able to access online health information more easily than ever. The American Medical Association recommends that patient education materials be targeted at or below the 6th grade level in order to accommodate a wider audience. In this study, we evaluate the difficulty of educational materials pertaining to common GI procedures; we analyze on the readability of online education materials for colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). Methods. Google search was performed using keywords of “colonoscopy,” “sigmoidoscopy,” and “EGD” with “patient information” at the end of each search term. The texts from a total of 18 studies, 6 for each of the procedures, were then saved. Each study was also subdivided into “Introduction,” “Preparation,” “Complications,” and if available, “Alternatives.” Furthermore, medical terminology that was properly explained, proper nouns, medication names, and other copyright text were removed in order to prevent inflation of the difficulty. Five validated readability tests were used to analyze each study and subsections: Coleman-Liau, New Dale-Chall, Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning Fog, SMOG. Results. Studies on colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and EGD had median readability grades of 9.7, 10.2, and 11.0, respectively. Analysis of the subsections revealed that the “Alternative” subsection was the most difficult to comprehend with a readability score of 11.4, whereas the “Introduction” subsection was the easiest to comprehend with a readability score of 9.5. Conclusion. Despite modifications to the studies that improved the readability scores, patient education materials were still significantly above the recommended 6th grade level across all websites. This study emphasizes that clear and simple language is warranted in order to create information that is suitable for most patients.

Clear as Mud: Readability Scores in Cloacal Exstrophy Literature and Its Treatment

“…Numerous studies have been published assessing the readability of patient education materials, with a staggering trend towards texts written above the recommended grade level. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Our online queries yielded an average readability level that greatly surpassed the recommended 6th grade reading level set by the NIH and the AMA. Among the four different readability formulas, the lowest average readability level was equivalent to an 11th grade reading level.…”

“…Although a few patterns have been published regarding the difficult readability of non-profit websites, when examining the multitude of readability analyses, no clear trend emerges. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] The Urology Care Foundation, a non-profit webpage, stands out as one of the lowest scored pages and thus was easily comprehensible. In a similar study, Routh et al compared internet sources between common and uncommon pediatric urology topics and found that webpages on uncommon topics like exstrophy had inferior accuracy and completeness.…”

Complicating the already complex? Readability scores in bladder exstrophy and its treatment

“…Indeed, this challenge is not unique to the information on CBE nor that of urology, it is endemic to all fields of medicine. Countless studies have been published evaluating the readability of patient education materials online across multiple specialties, and the trend for information to be above the recommended reading level is overwhelming (14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26).…”

Esophageal Dilation: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Patient Information

“…Former studies of readability analysis in other fields were employed as methods for this study [13,14]. The topics of patient preparation, procedure, postoperative care, and complications with regard to esophageal dilation were established, and subsequent keywords were developed to encompass these topics.…”