David R Hansberry1, Sahil R Patel2, Prateek Agarwal3, Nitin Agarwal4, Elizabeth S John5, Ann M John6, James C Reynolds7. 1. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, 132 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA. hansbedr@gmail.com. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Hahnemann University Hospital, Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, Rutgers University, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. 6. Department of Medicine, Rutgers University, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The lay public frequently access and rely on online information as a source of their medical knowledge. Many medical societies are unaware of national patient education material guidelines and subsequently fail to meet them. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials within the medical field of gastroenterology. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen articles pertaining to patient education materials were evaluated with ten well-established readability scales. The articles were available on the websites for the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), and the NIH section National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc analysis were conducted to determine any differences in level of readability between websites. RESULTS: The 214 articles were written at an 11.8 ± 2.1 grade level with a range of 8.0 to 16.0 grade level. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis determined the ACG was written at a significantly (p < 0.05) more difficult level when compared to the AGA, the BSG, and the NIDDK websites. No differences were noted when comparing the ASGE website. CONCLUSIONS: None of the patient education materials were written at a level that met national guidelines. If the materials are redrafted, the general American public will likely have a greater understanding of the gastroenterology content.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The lay public frequently access and rely on online information as a source of their medical knowledge. Many medical societies are unaware of national patient education material guidelines and subsequently fail to meet them. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials within the medical field of gastroenterology. METHODS: Two hundred fourteen articles pertaining to patient education materials were evaluated with ten well-established readability scales. The articles were available on the websites for the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), and the NIH section National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc analysis were conducted to determine any differences in level of readability between websites. RESULTS: The 214 articles were written at an 11.8 ± 2.1 grade level with a range of 8.0 to 16.0 grade level. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis determined the ACG was written at a significantly (p < 0.05) more difficult level when compared to the AGA, the BSG, and the NIDDK websites. No differences were noted when comparing the ASGE website. CONCLUSIONS: None of the patient education materials were written at a level that met national guidelines. If the materials are redrafted, the general American public will likely have a greater understanding of the gastroenterology content.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gastroenterology; Health literacy; Internet; Patient education; Readability
Authors: Khushabu Kasabwala; Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Soly Baredes; Jean Anderson Eloy Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2012-04-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Victor Sabourin; Krystal L Tomei; Charles J Prestigiacomo Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Nitin Agarwal; Daniel P Feghhi; Raghav Gupta; David R Hansberry; John C Quinn; Robert F Heary; Ira M Goldstein Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2014-06-13
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
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: Theresa Sophie Busse; Julia Nitsche; Sven Kernebeck; Chantal Jux; Jürgen Weitz; Jan P Ehlers; Ulrich Bork Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 4.614