Literature DB >> 24040878

Patient information in Graves' disease and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: readability assessment of online resources.

Matthew R Edmunds1, Alastair K Denniston, Kristien Boelaert, Jayne A Franklyn, Omar M Durrani.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Internet is a vital source of information for patients hoping to learn more about their disease. Health literacy of the general population is known to be poor, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) recommending that patient-oriented literature be written at a fourth- to sixth-grade reading level to optimize comprehensibility. In this study we assessed the readability of online literature specifically for Graves' disease (GD) and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO).
METHODS: Readability of the content of the top 20 English-language GD patient-oriented online resources and top 30 of the equivalent TAO resources returned by Google search was analyzed. Web pages were identified using the Google search terms "Graves' disease" and "Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy," respectively. Extraneous text (e.g., hyperlinks, affiliations, disclaimers) was removed. Relevant text proceeded to readability analysis using four validated measures: Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning-Fog Index. Readability was compared with USDHHS standards.
RESULTS: Overall, median word count (with interquartile range [IQR] and range) was 990 (IQR 846, 195-3867), with a median of 18 words per sentence (IQR 4.0, 7.5-28). Median Flesch Reading Ease Score was 46 (IQR 13, 24-64), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 11 (IQR 3.0, 7.2-17), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook 13 (IQR 2.0, 9.6-17), and Gunning-Fog Index 13 (IQR 3.0, 9.2-19), each equivalent to a reading level of >11th grade and "difficult" on the USDHHS classification. None of the web pages evaluated had readability scores in accordance with published guidelines. There was no significant difference with the country of origin of each web page, website commercial status, or with pages predominantly focused on GD or TAO.
CONCLUSIONS: Readability scores for online GD and TAO patient-focused materials are inferior to those recommended. Screening of this online material, as well as subsequent revision, is crucial to increase future patient knowledge, satisfaction, and compliance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24040878      PMCID: PMC3887410          DOI: 10.1089/thy.2013.0252

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Thyroid        ISSN: 1050-7256            Impact factor:   6.568


  19 in total

1.  Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors.

Authors:  Poonam Misra; Khushabu Kasabwala; Nitin Agarwal; Jean Anderson Eloy; James K Liu
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 4.130

2.  When do older adults turn to the internet for health information? Findings from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study.

Authors:  Kathryn E Flynn; Maureen A Smith; Jeremy Freese
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-09-25       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Readability of Patient-oriented Online Dermatology Resources.

Authors:  Brittain H Tulbert; Clint W Snyder; Robert T Brodell
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2011-03

4.  Patients' use of the Internet for medical information.

Authors:  Joseph A Diaz; Rebecca A Griffith; James J Ng; Steven E Reinert; Peter D Friedmann; Anne W Moulton
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Quality and readability of online patient information for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  Marc A Bailey; Patrick A Coughlin; Soroush Sohrabi; Kathryn J Griffin; S Tawqeer Rashid; Max A Troxler; D Julian A Scott
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-04-21       Impact factor: 4.268

6.  Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions.

Authors:  Priti P Patel; Ian C Hoppe; Naveen K Ahuja; Frank S Ciminello
Journal:  J Craniofac Surg       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.046

7.  Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization.

Authors:  J A Gazmararian; D W Baker; M V Williams; R M Parker; T L Scott; D C Green; S N Fehrenbach; J Ren; J P Koplan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-10       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Use of the Internet and e-mail for health care information: results from a national survey.

Authors:  Laurence Baker; Todd H Wagner; Sara Singer; M Kate Bundorf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-14       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet?

Authors:  Christina A Rennie; Shabeeba Hannan; Nick Maycock; Chee Kang
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Increased readability improves the comprehension of written information for patients with skin disease.

Authors:  G C Baker; D E Newton; P R Bergstresser
Journal:  J Am Acad Dermatol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 11.527

View more
  12 in total

1.  Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis.

Authors:  Tayla Storr; Judith Maher; Elizabeth Swanepoel
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.092

2.  Initial Readability Assessment of Clinical Trial Eligibility Criteria.

Authors:  Tian Kang; Noémie Elhadad; Chunhua Weng
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2015-11-05

3.  Assessment of Online Patient Education Material About Dysphagia.

Authors:  Sarah M Steiner; Bonnie K Slavych; Richard I Zraick
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2022-10-07       Impact factor: 2.733

4.  [Comprehensibility of online-based patient education material in ophthalmology].

Authors:  N Heim; A Faron; J Fuchs; M Martini; R H Reich; K Löffler
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.059

5.  Evaluation of the Content, Quality, and Readability of Patient Accessible Online Resources Regarding Cataracts.

Authors:  Annika J Patel; Amy Kloosterboer; Nicolas A Yannuzzi; Nandini Venkateswaran; Jayanth Sridhar
Journal:  Semin Ophthalmol       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 2.246

Review 6.  Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review.

Authors:  Andrew M Williams; Kelly W Muir; Jullia A Rosdahl
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-08-03       Impact factor: 2.209

7.  Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure.

Authors:  Akhil Kher; Sandra Johnson; Robert Griffith
Journal:  Adv Prev Med       Date:  2017-06-01

8.  Communications in the time of a pandemic: the readability of documents for public consumption.

Authors:  Catherine Ferguson; Margaret Merga; Stephen Winn
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 3.755

9.  Information on the Internet about clear aligner treatment-an assessment of content, quality, and readability.

Authors:  Mehmed Taha Alpaydın; Suleyman Kutalmış Buyuk; Nehir Canigur Bavbek
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.341

10.  Quality and readability of English-language Internet information for vestibular disorders.

Authors:  Lilian Felipe; Eldré W Beukes; Baylie A Fox; Vinaya Manchaiah
Journal:  J Vestib Res       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.354

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.