Literature DB >> 28905177

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

Patrick Betschart1, Valentin Zumstein2, Maico Bentivoglio3, Daniel Engeler2, Hans-Peter Schmid2, Dominik Abt2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the readability of the web-based patient education material provided by the European Association of Urology.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: English patient education materials (PEM) as available in May 2017 were obtained from the EAU website. Each topic was analyzed separately using six well-established readability assessment tools, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), SMOG Grade Level (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease Formula (FRE) and Fry Readability Graph (FRG).
RESULTS: A total of 17 main topics were identified of which separate basic and in-depth information is provided for 14 topics. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, GFI) showed readability scores of 7th-13th grade for basic information, 8th-15th grade for in-depth information and 7th-15th grade for single PEM. Median FRE score was 54 points (range 45-65) for basic information and 56 points (41-64) for in-depth information. The FRG as a graphical assessment revealed only 13 valid results with an approximate 8th-17th grade level.
CONCLUSION: The EAU provides carefully worked out PEM for 17 urological topics. Although improved readability compared to similar analyses was found, a simplification of certain chapters might be helpful to facilitate better patient understanding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  EAU; Patient education material; Readability assessment; Urology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28905177     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1695-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  19 in total

1.  A new readability yardstick.

Authors:  R FLESCH
Journal:  J Appl Psychol       Date:  1948-06

2.  Creating a gold standard for the readability measurement of health texts.

Authors:  Sasikiran Kandula; Qing Zeng-Treitler
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2008-11-06

Review 3.  Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review.

Authors:  Nancy D Berkman; Stacey L Sheridan; Katrina E Donahue; David J Halpern; Karen Crotty
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-19       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites.

Authors:  Jean Anderson Eloy; Shawn Li; Khushabu Kasabwala; Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Soly Baredes; Michael Setzen
Journal:  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.497

5.  Improving readability of patient education materials.

Authors:  S D Horner; D Surratt; S Juliusson
Journal:  J Community Health Nurs       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 0.974

6.  Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials.

Authors:  Evan D Sheppard; Zane Hyde; Mason N Florence; Gerald McGwin; John S Kirchner; Brent A Ponce
Journal:  Foot Ankle Int       Date:  2014-09-19       Impact factor: 2.827

7.  Influence of patient education on morbidity caused by ureteral stents.

Authors:  Dominik Abt; Elisabeth Warzinek; Hans-Peter Schmid; Sarah Roberta Haile; Daniel Stephan Engeler
Journal:  Int J Urol       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.369

8.  The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure.

Authors:  R Michielutte; J Bahnson; M B Dignan; E M Schroeder
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 2.037

9.  An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions.

Authors:  Katie Dalziel; Michael J Leveridge; Stephen S Steele; Jason P Izard
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

10.  How Readable Is BPH Treatment Information on the Internet? Assessing Barriers to Literacy in Prostate Health.

Authors:  Kevin Koo; Ronald L Yap
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2016-11-30
View more
  7 in total

1.  The use of the Gunning Fog Index to evaluate the readability of Polish and English drug leaflets in the context of Health Literacy challenges in Medical Linguistics: An exploratory study.

Authors:  Damian Świeczkowski; Sławomir Kułacz
Journal:  Cardiol J       Date:  2020-11-03       Impact factor: 2.737

Review 2.  Shared decision-making in urology and female pelvic floor medicine and reconstructive surgery.

Authors:  David A Ossin; Emily C Carter; Rufus Cartwright; Philippe D Violette; Shilpa Iyer; Geraldine T Klein; Sangeeta Senapati; Zachary Klaassen; Sylvia M Botros
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2021-12-20       Impact factor: 14.432

3.  Improving Patient Education Materials: A Practical Algorithm from Development to Validation.

Authors:  Patrick Betschart; Sergej E Staubli; Valentin Zumstein; Christa Babst; Rafael Sauter; Hans-Peter Schmid; Dominik Abt
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-10-01

4.  Readability Assessment of Commonly Used German Urological Questionnaires.

Authors:  Pavel Lyatoshinsky; Manolis Pratsinis; Dominik Abt; Hans-Peter Schmid; Valentin Zumstein; Patrick Betschart
Journal:  Curr Urol       Date:  2019-10-01

5.  Developing and Establishing Content Validity of Vignettes for Health Care Education and Research.

Authors:  Barbara St Marie; Andrea Jimmerson; Yelena Perkhounkova; Keela Herr
Journal:  West J Nurs Res       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 1.774

6.  Communications in the time of a pandemic: the readability of documents for public consumption.

Authors:  Catherine Ferguson; Margaret Merga; Stephen Winn
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 3.755

7.  Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction.

Authors:  Trent A Pattenden; Rachael A Raleigh; Elle R Pattenden; Isaac A Thangasamy
Journal:  BJUI Compass       Date:  2021-05-06
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.