Understood? Evaluating the readability and understandability of intranasal corticosteroid delivery instructions

Abstract

Background Allergic rhinitis is a widespread disease that has significant quality‐of‐life ramifications. Symptoms include rhinorrhea, nasal obstruction, cough, and postnasal drip. Intranasal corticosteroids are a hallmark of treatment of allergic rhinitis. However, the benefits of treatment are dependent on correct nasal spray technique, of which many patients are not aware. Patient instructions are included with the purchase of these medications. The readability and understandability for these educational materials has been minimally assessed in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability and understandability of commonly used intranasal steroids. Methods Three readability measures (Gunning Fog, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG], and FORCAST) and an understandability assessment (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials [PEMAT‐P]) were used to evaluate the instructions for use of commonly prescribed intranasal steroids. Instructions with 6th grade readability level or lower were considered to meet health literacy experts’ recommendations. Higher understandability values correlate to easier understandability. Results Instructions for 10 intranasal corticosteroid brands were reviewed. Gunning Fog consistently estimated easiest readability, whereas FORCAST estimated most difficult readability. Twenty percent (20%) of analyzed instructions met National Institutes of Health and health literacy experts’ recommended reading levels. Understandability of instructions ranged from 33% to 90%, with an average of 66%. Conclusion The benefit of intranasal corticosteroids is contingent on correct use by patients. However, the prepackaged instructions provided are most often above recommended reading levels and are difficult to understand. Future development of intranasal steroid instructions should meet recommended readability levels and be understandable to maximize their utility.

Readability of Online Materials Related to Vocal Cord Leukoplakia

“…The understandability score of 73.65% 6 7.05% in this study is comparable but a bit higher than that of similar studies on other topics, which reported scores ranging from 62.8% to 66.0%. [44][45][46] The actionability score in the current study of 13.63% 6 22.47% is comparable to scores in the literature. 37,44,45 Although a high PEMAT-P score is better than a low score, there are no established guidelines for a PEMAT-P target to help guide writing.…”

“…Similarly, PEMAT‐P understandability and actionability scores were low. The understandability score of 73.65% ± 7.05% in this study is comparable but a bit higher than that of similar studies on other topics, which reported scores ranging from 62.8% to 66.0% 44–46 . The actionability score in the current study of 13.63% ± 22.47% is comparable to scores in the literature 37,44,45 .…”

Readability Analysis and Accessibility of Online Materials About Transgender Voice Care

“…The American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend that patient education resources be written at a sixth-grade level to maximize patient comprehension. 1 Consequently, several publications in diverse medical specialties ranging from rheumatology, 2 plastic surgery, 3 and otolaryngology 4-6 have evaluated the readability and quality of online education website materials.…”

Evaluation of the techniques and steps of intranasal corticosteroid sprays administration

“…However, there is no standard guideline for INCS use in Thailand. Consequently, the researcher gathered and adapted 12 techniques and steps used for INCS administration in previous studies [ 5 16 17 18 ], as well as a Dutch protocol [ 19 ], and from leafletless usage. Further, there are some differences in using the methods, as shown in Table 4 .…”

“…Further, there are some differences in using the methods, as shown in Table 4 . The 5 recommended essential steps were determined in reference to previous studies [ 14 16 17 18 19 ].…”