Bao Ngoc N Tran1, Mansher Singh1, Bernard T Lee2, Rima Rudd3, Dhruv Singhal1. 1. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: blee3@bidmc.harvard.edu. 3. Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over 72% of Americans use online health information to assist in health care decision-making. Previous studies of lymphedema literature have focused only on reading level of patient-oriented materials online. Findings indicate they are too advanced for most patients to comprehend. This, more comprehensive study, expands the previous analysis to include critical elements of health materials beyond readability using assessment tools to report on the complexity and density of data as well as text design, vocabulary, and organization. METHODS: The top 10 highest ranked websites on lymphedema were identified using the most popular search engine (Google). Website content was analyzed for readability, complexity, and suitability using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, PMOSE/iKIRSCH, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), respectively. PMOSE/iKIRSCH and SAM were performed by two independent raters. Fleiss' kappa score was calculated to ensure inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Online lymphedema literature had a reading grade level of 14.0 (SMOG). Overall complexity score was 6.7 (PMOSE/iKIRSCH) corresponding to "low" complexity and requiring a 8th-12th grade education. Fleiss' kappa score was 80% (P = 0.04, "substantial" agreement). Overall suitability score was 45% (SAM) correlating to the lowest level of "adequate" suitability. Fleiss' kappa score was 76% (P = 0.06, "substantial" agreement). CONCLUSIONS: Online resources for lymphedema are above the recommended levels for readability and complexity. The suitability level is barely adequate for the intended audience. Overall, these materials are too sophisticated for the average American adult, whose literacy skills are well documented. Further efforts to revise these materials are needed to improve patient comprehension and understanding.
BACKGROUND: Over 72% of Americans use online health information to assist in health care decision-making. Previous studies of lymphedema literature have focused only on reading level of patient-oriented materials online. Findings indicate they are too advanced for most patients to comprehend. This, more comprehensive study, expands the previous analysis to include critical elements of health materials beyond readability using assessment tools to report on the complexity and density of data as well as text design, vocabulary, and organization. METHODS: The top 10 highest ranked websites on lymphedema were identified using the most popular search engine (Google). Website content was analyzed for readability, complexity, and suitability using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, PMOSE/iKIRSCH, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM), respectively. PMOSE/iKIRSCH and SAM were performed by two independent raters. Fleiss' kappa score was calculated to ensure inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: Online lymphedema literature had a reading grade level of 14.0 (SMOG). Overall complexity score was 6.7 (PMOSE/iKIRSCH) corresponding to "low" complexity and requiring a 8th-12th grade education. Fleiss' kappa score was 80% (P = 0.04, "substantial" agreement). Overall suitability score was 45% (SAM) correlating to the lowest level of "adequate" suitability. Fleiss' kappa score was 76% (P = 0.06, "substantial" agreement). CONCLUSIONS: Online resources for lymphedema are above the recommended levels for readability and complexity. The suitability level is barely adequate for the intended audience. Overall, these materials are too sophisticated for the average American adult, whose literacy skills are well documented. Further efforts to revise these materials are needed to improve patient comprehension and understanding.