Literature DB >> 26818318

Readability Assessment of Patient Information about Lymphedema and Its Treatment.

Akhil K Seth1, Christina R Vargas, Danielle J Chuang, Bernard T Lee.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Patient use of online resources for health information is increasing, and access to appropriately written information has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and overall outcomes. The American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health recommend that patient materials be written at a sixth-grade reading level. In this study, the authors simulated a patient search of online educational content for lymphedema and evaluated readability.
METHODS: An online search for the term "lymphedema" was performed, and the first 12 hits were identified. User and location filters were disabled and sponsored results were excluded. Patient information from each site was downloaded and formatted into plain text. Readability was assessed using established tests: Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease Index, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Formula, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula.
RESULTS: There were 152 patient articles downloaded; the overall mean reading level was 12.6. Individual website reading levels ranged from 9.4 (cancer.org) to 16.7 (wikipedia.org). There were 36 articles dedicated to conservative treatments for lymphedema; surgical treatment was mentioned in nine articles across four sites. The average reading level for conservative management was 12.7, compared with 15.6 for surgery (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patient information found through an Internet search for lymphedema is too difficult for many American adults to read. Websites queried had a range of readability, and surgeons should direct patients to sites appropriate for their level. There is limited information about surgical treatment available on the most popular sites; this information is significantly harder to read than sections on conservative measures.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26818318     DOI: 10.1097/01.prs.0000475747.95096.ab

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   4.730


  6 in total

1.  Hand Surgery Resources Exceed American Health Literacy.

Authors:  Julia A Cook; Sarah E Sasor; Sunil S Tholpady; Arash Momeni; Michael W Chu
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2017-08-20

2.  Readability of English, German, and Russian Disease-Related Wikipedia Pages: Automated Computational Analysis.

Authors:  Jelizaveta Gordejeva; Richard Zowalla; Monika Pobiruchin; Martin Wiesner
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2022-05-16       Impact factor: 7.076

3.  Readability of Online Materials for Rhinoplasty.

Authors:  Pauline Joy F Santos; David A Daar; Keyianoosh Z Paydar; Garrett A Wirth
Journal:  World J Plast Surg       Date:  2018-01

4.  Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites.

Authors:  Staci M Gagne; Florian J Fintelmann; Efren J Flores; Shaunagh McDermott; Dexter P Mendoza; Milena Petranovic; Melissa C Price; Justin T Stowell; Brent P Little
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-01-03

5.  Health Literacy in Plastic Surgery: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ekaterina Tiourin; Natalie Barton; Jeffrey E Janis
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-04-13

6.  Readability of Wikipedia Pages on Autoimmune Disorders: Systematic Quantitative Assessment.

Authors:  Abdulla Watad; Nicola Luigi Bragazzi; Francesco Brigo; Kassem Sharif; Howard Amital; Dennis McGonagle; Yehuda Shoenfeld; Mohammad Adawi
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2017-07-18       Impact factor: 5.428

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.