Literature DB >> 27294810

Is the Readability of Spine-Related Patient Education Material Improving?: An Assessment of Subspecialty Websites.

Adam E M Eltorai1, Morgan Cheatham, Syed S Naqvi, Siddharth Marthi, Victor Dang, Mark A Palumbo, Alan H Daniels.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Analysis of spine-related patient education materials (PEMs) from subspecialty websites.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the readability of spine-related PEMs and compare to readability data from 2008. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many spine patients use the Internet for health information. Several agencies recommend that the readability of online PEMs should be no greater than a sixth-grade reading level, as health literacy predicts health-related quality of life outcomes. This study evaluated whether the North American Spine Society (NASS), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) online PEMs meet recommended readability guidelines for medical information.
METHODS: All publicly accessible spine-related entries within the patient education section of the NASS, AANS, and AAOS websites were analyzed for grade level readability using the Flesch-Kincaid formula. Readability scores were also compared with a similar 2008 analysis. Comparative statistics were performed.
RESULTS: A total of 125 entries from the subspecialty websites were analyzed. The average (SD) readability of the online articles was grade level 10.7 (2.3). Of the articles, 117 (93.6%) had a readability score above the sixth-grade level. The readability of the articles exceeded the maximum recommended level by an average of 4.7 grade levels (95% CI, 4.292-5.103; P < 0.001). Compared with 2008, the three societies published more spine-related patient education articles (61 vs. 125, P = 0.045) and the average readability level improved from 11.5 to 10.7 (P = 0.018). Of three examined societies, only one showed significant improvement over time.
CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the spine-related PEMs on the NASS, AAOS, and AANS websites have readability levels that may make comprehension difficult for a substantial portion of the patient population. Although some progress has been made in the readability of PEMs over the past 7 years, additional improvement is necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27294810     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001446

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  8 in total

1.  Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Authors:  M Daniel Wongworawat
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-06-14       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Readability assessment of online patient education materials provided by the European Association of Urology.

Authors:  Patrick Betschart; Valentin Zumstein; Maico Bentivoglio; Daniel Engeler; Hans-Peter Schmid; Dominik Abt
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2017-09-13       Impact factor: 2.370

3.  Availability and Readability of Spinal Cord Injury Online Information Materials for Spanish Speaking Population in Neurosurgical Academic Programs: A Nationwide Study.

Authors:  Jacques Lara-Reyna; Jorge A Roa; Kurt A Yaeger; Konstantinos Margetis
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-10-14

4.  Readability Analysis of Patient-Accessible Information Regarding Ambulatory Surgical Center Procedures.

Authors:  Conor P Lynch; Elliot D K Cha; Nathaniel W Jenkins; James M Parrish; Shruthi Mohan; Cara E Geoghegan; Caroline N Jadczak; Kern Singh
Journal:  Int J Spine Surg       Date:  2021-10-14

5.  Academics versus the Internet: Evaluating the readability of patient education materials for cerebrovascular conditions from major academic centers.

Authors:  Caleb Simpeh Edwards; Simon Gashaw Ammanuel; Ogonna N Nnamani Silva; Garret P Greeneway; Katherine M Bunch; Lars W Meisner; Paul S Page; Azam S Ahmed
Journal:  Surg Neurol Int       Date:  2022-09-02

6.  Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials.

Authors:  Kelsey Leonard Grabeel; Jennifer Russomanno; Sandy Oelschlegel; Emily Tester; Robert Eric Heidel
Journal:  J Med Libr Assoc       Date:  2018-01-02

7.  Poor Readability of AOSSM Patient Education Resources and Opportunities for Improvement.

Authors:  Rafael Kakazu; Adam Schumaier; Chelsea Minoughan; Brian Grawe
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2018-11-02

8.  Implementation of a mobile app for trauma education: results from a multicenter study.

Authors:  Benjamin R Childs; Mary A Breslin; Mai P Nguyen; Natasha M Simske; Paul S Whiting; Aswinkumar Vasireddy; Heather A Vallier
Journal:  Trauma Surg Acute Care Open       Date:  2020-06-03
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.