OBJECTIVE: The Internet could be a key channel for disseminating information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little research, however, has systematically examined factors other than writing style related to the reading difficulty of cancer information on the Internet. In the present study we assessed the reading difficulty of 19 CRC Web sites. METHODS: We assessed pages within selected sites containing information on CRC screening or prevention using the SMOG readability formula and Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument. RESULTS: The average SMOG reading grade level was 12.8. The SAM results indicated common problems with the sites, including (1) lack of review of key ideas; (2) insufficient use of illustrations for key messages; (3) crowded layout and long line lengths; (4) small type size and lack of cues to highlight key content; and (5) lack of interactive features. CONCLUSIONS: Many Web sites providing CRC information may be too difficult for the average American adult and much too difficult for adults with limited literacy. The unique features of the Internet that could support learning are not being utilized. The Internet could be a powerful tool for educating individuals about CRC, but the barrier of difficult content must be addressed along with access barriers.
OBJECTIVE: The Internet could be a key channel for disseminating information about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Little research, however, has systematically examined factors other than writing style related to the reading difficulty of cancer information on the Internet. In the present study we assessed the reading difficulty of 19 CRC Web sites. METHODS: We assessed pages within selected sites containing information on CRC screening or prevention using the SMOG readability formula and Suitability Assessment of Materials instrument. RESULTS: The average SMOG reading grade level was 12.8. The SAM results indicated common problems with the sites, including (1) lack of review of key ideas; (2) insufficient use of illustrations for key messages; (3) crowded layout and long line lengths; (4) small type size and lack of cues to highlight key content; and (5) lack of interactive features. CONCLUSIONS: Many Web sites providing CRC information may be too difficult for the average American adult and much too difficult for adults with limited literacy. The unique features of the Internet that could support learning are not being utilized. The Internet could be a powerful tool for educating individuals about CRC, but the barrier of difficult content must be addressed along with access barriers.
Authors: Angela G Brega; Megan A G Freedman; William G LeBlanc; Juliana Barnard; Natabhona M Mabachi; Maribel Cifuentes; Karen Albright; Barry D Weiss; Cindy Brach; David R West Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2015
Authors: Alessandra Storino; Camila Guetter; Manuel Castillo-Angeles; Ammara A Watkins; Joseph D Mancias; Andrea Bullock; A James Moser; Tara S Kent Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Neeraja B Peterson; Kathleen A Dwyer; Shelagh A Mulvaney; Mary S Dietrich; Russell L Rothman Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.798
Authors: Kimberly A Kaphingst; Colleen M McBride; Christopher Wade; Sharon Hensley Alford; Lawrence C Brody; Andreas D Baxevanis Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2010-09-29 Impact factor: 5.428