David Richard Hansberry1, Michael D White2, Michael D'Angelo2, Arpan V Prabhu3, Sarah Kamel1, Paras Lakhani1, Baskaran Sundaram1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospitals, 132 S 10th St, Philadelphia, PA 19107. 2. 2 Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. 3 Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Pittsburgh Hillman Cancer Institute, Pittsburgh, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Following the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, several national societies from multiple disciplines have endorsed the use of low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer. Online patient education materials are an important tool to disseminate information to the general public regarding the proven health benefits of lung cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the reading level at which these materials related to lung cancer screening are written. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The four terms "pulmonary nodule," "radiation," "low-dose CT," and "lung cancer screening" were searched on Google, and the first 20 online resources for each term were downloaded, converted into plain text, and analyzed using 10 well-established readability scales. If the websites were not written specifically for patients, they were excluded. RESULTS: The 80 articles were written at a 12.6 ± 2.7 (mean ± SD) grade level, with grade levels ranging from 4.0 to 19.0. Of the 80 articles, 62.5% required a high school education to comprehend, and 22.6% required a college degree or higher (≥ 16th grade) to comprehend. Only 2.5% of the analyzed articles adhered to the recommendations of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education materials be written at a 3rd- to 7th-grade reading level. CONCLUSION: Commonly visited online lung cancer screening-related patient education materials are written at a level beyond the general patient population's ability to comprehend and may be contributing to a knowledge gap that is inhibiting patients from improving their health literacy.
OBJECTIVE: Following the findings of the National Lung Screening Trial, several national societies from multiple disciplines have endorsed the use of low-dose chest CT to screen for lung cancer. Online patient education materials are an important tool to disseminate information to the general public regarding the proven health benefits of lung cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the reading level at which these materials related to lung cancer screening are written. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The four terms "pulmonary nodule," "radiation," "low-dose CT," and "lung cancer screening" were searched on Google, and the first 20 online resources for each term were downloaded, converted into plain text, and analyzed using 10 well-established readability scales. If the websites were not written specifically for patients, they were excluded. RESULTS: The 80 articles were written at a 12.6 ± 2.7 (mean ± SD) grade level, with grade levels ranging from 4.0 to 19.0. Of the 80 articles, 62.5% required a high school education to comprehend, and 22.6% required a college degree or higher (≥ 16th grade) to comprehend. Only 2.5% of the analyzed articles adhered to the recommendations of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education materials be written at a 3rd- to 7th-grade reading level. CONCLUSION: Commonly visited online lung cancer screening-related patient education materials are written at a level beyond the general patient population's ability to comprehend and may be contributing to a knowledge gap that is inhibiting patients from improving their health literacy.
Entities:
Keywords:
lung cancer screening; patient education; pulmonary nodule; readability
Authors: Jenna E Schiffelbein; Kathleen L Carluzzo; Rian M Hasson; Jennifer A Alford-Teaster; Inger Imset; Tracy Onega Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2020 Jan-Dec
Authors: Kevin Haas; Christie Brillante; Lisa Sharp; Ahmed K Elzokaky; Mary Pasquinelli; Lawrence Feldman; Kevin L Kovitz; Min Joo Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Staci M Gagne; Florian J Fintelmann; Efren J Flores; Shaunagh McDermott; Dexter P Mendoza; Milena Petranovic; Melissa C Price; Justin T Stowell; Brent P Little Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-01-03
Authors: Janet E Tonge; Melanie Atack; Phil A Crosbie; Phil V Barber; Richard Booton; Denis Colligan Journal: Health Expect Date: 2018-10-05 Impact factor: 3.377