William T N Hunt1, Emily J McGrath. 1. Department of Dermatology, The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust, Exeter, Devon, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient information leaflets (PILs) provide important guidance to patients after skin surgery. Readability is a method of evaluating information for text comprehension. The recommended level for PIL readability is US grade ≤6. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the readability of public English dermatological postoperative PILs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All dermatology departments in England were requested to provide their postoperative PILs. Patient information leaflets were evaluated using Readability Studio (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH). Two preselected parameters were also noted: whether the PIL was doctor or nurse-written, and whether the PIL was Information Standard hallmarked. RESULTS: Eighty-five of one hundred thirty (65.4%) of PILs were evaluated. Only 29.4% of the PILs were grade level ≤6 with Flesch-Kincaid. The mean readability levels were 7.8 for Flesch-Kincaid, 67 for Flesch reading ease, 10.5 for Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), 9.4 for Gunning-Fog, 8 for Fry, and 9.8 for FORCAST. No instruments demonstrated a significant difference between doctor (6) and nurse-written (7) PILs. Two instruments found that the 3 Information Standard hallmarked PILs had a higher (harder) readability than ordinary PILs (n = 82) (Gunning-Fog, p = .029*; SMOG p = .049*). CONCLUSION: Most English postoperative dermatological PILs' readability levels exceed recommendations (US grade ≤6). Departmental PILs should be reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensible to their patients.
BACKGROUND: Postoperative patient information leaflets (PILs) provide important guidance to patients after skin surgery. Readability is a method of evaluating information for text comprehension. The recommended level for PIL readability is US grade ≤6. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the readability of public English dermatological postoperative PILs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All dermatology departments in England were requested to provide their postoperative PILs. Patient information leaflets were evaluated using Readability Studio (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH). Two preselected parameters were also noted: whether the PIL was doctor or nurse-written, and whether the PIL was Information Standard hallmarked. RESULTS: Eighty-five of one hundred thirty (65.4%) of PILs were evaluated. Only 29.4% of the PILs were grade level ≤6 with Flesch-Kincaid. The mean readability levels were 7.8 for Flesch-Kincaid, 67 for Flesch reading ease, 10.5 for Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), 9.4 for Gunning-Fog, 8 for Fry, and 9.8 for FORCAST. No instruments demonstrated a significant difference between doctor (6) and nurse-written (7) PILs. Two instruments found that the 3 Information Standard hallmarked PILs had a higher (harder) readability than ordinary PILs (n = 82) (Gunning-Fog, p = .029*; SMOG p = .049*). CONCLUSION: Most English postoperative dermatological PILs' readability levels exceed recommendations (US grade ≤6). Departmental PILs should be reviewed to ensure that they are comprehensible to their patients.