Arpan V Prabhu1, David R Hansberry2, Nitin Agarwal3, David A Clump1, Dwight E Heron4. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 2. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: herond2@upmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physicians encourage patients to be informed about their health care options, but much of the online health care-related resources can be beneficial only if patients are capable of comprehending it. This study's aim was to assess the readability level of online patient education resources for radiation oncology to conclude whether they meet the general public's health literacy needs as determined by the guidelines of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA). METHODS: Radiation oncology-related internet-based patient education materials were downloaded from 5 major professional websites (American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Brachytherapy Society, RadiologyInfo.org, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Additional patient education documents were downloaded by searching for key radiation oncology phrases using Google. A total of 135 articles were downloaded and assessed for their readability level using 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely accepted in the medical literature. RESULTS: When all 10 assessment tools for readability were taken into account, the 135 online patient education articles were written at an average grade level of 13.7 ± 2.0. One hundred nine of the 135 articles (80.7%) required a high school graduate's comprehension level (12th-grade level or higher). Only 1 of the 135 articles (0.74%) met the AMA and NIH recommendations for patient education resources to be written between the third-grade and seventh-grade levels. CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology websites have patient education material written at an educational level above the NIH and AMA recommendations; as a result, average American patients may not be able to fully understand them. Rewriting radiation oncology patient education resources would likely contribute to the patients' understanding of their health and treatment options, making each physician-patient interaction more productive and efficient.
PURPOSE: Physicians encourage patients to be informed about their health care options, but much of the online health care-related resources can be beneficial only if patients are capable of comprehending it. This study's aim was to assess the readability level of online patient education resources for radiation oncology to conclude whether they meet the general public's health literacy needs as determined by the guidelines of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA). METHODS: Radiation oncology-related internet-based patient education materials were downloaded from 5 major professional websites (American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Brachytherapy Society, RadiologyInfo.org, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Additional patient education documents were downloaded by searching for key radiation oncology phrases using Google. A total of 135 articles were downloaded and assessed for their readability level using 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely accepted in the medical literature. RESULTS: When all 10 assessment tools for readability were taken into account, the 135 online patient education articles were written at an average grade level of 13.7 ± 2.0. One hundred nine of the 135 articles (80.7%) required a high school graduate's comprehension level (12th-grade level or higher). Only 1 of the 135 articles (0.74%) met the AMA and NIH recommendations for patient education resources to be written between the third-grade and seventh-grade levels. CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology websites have patient education material written at an educational level above the NIH and AMA recommendations; as a result, average American patients may not be able to fully understand them. Rewriting radiation oncology patient education resources would likely contribute to the patients' understanding of their health and treatment options, making each physician-patient interaction more productive and efficient.
Authors: David R Hansberry; Michael D'Angelo; Michael D White; Arpan V Prabhu; Mougnyan Cox; Nitin Agarwal; Sandeep Deshmukh Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-11-15
Authors: David A Sallman; Rafael Bejar; Guillermo Montalban-Bravo; Sandra E Kurtin; Alan F List; Guillermo Garcia-Manero; Stephen D Nimer; Casey L O'Connell; Dale Schaar; Janice Butchko; Tracey Iraca; Stephanie Searle Journal: Leuk Res Rep Date: 2022-05-25
Authors: Ritu Arya; Tomoko Ichikawa; Brian Callender; Olivia Schultz; Marina DePablo; Kira Novak; Shanyanyan Li; Apoorva Shenoy; Andrea Everman; Sarah Braunstein; Isabel Dec; Sonia Lala; Yachu Feng; Laura Biltz; Anne R McCall; Daniel W Golden Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-09-11
Authors: Michael K Rooney; Daniel W Golden; John Byun; Rimas V Lukas; Adam M Sonabend; Maciej S Lesniak; Sean Sachdev Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Stephen A Rosenberg; Ryan A Denu; David Francis; Craig R Hullett; Michael Fisher; Jessica M Schuster; Michael F Bassetti; Randall J Kimple Journal: Appl Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-06-19