Literature DB >> 35344107

Academic and community hernia center websites in the United States fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.

S Docimo1, K Seeras2, R Acho3, A Pryor2, K Spaniolas2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.
METHODS: A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words "Hernia Center" and "University Hernia Center" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.
RESULTS: Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSION: Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Health Literacy and Academic Hernia Centers; Health literac and hernia repairs; Health literacy and Community Hernia Centers; Readability and Hernia centers

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35344107     DOI: 10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hernia        ISSN: 1248-9204            Impact factor:   2.920


  19 in total

1.  The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services.

Authors:  D W Baker; R M Parker; M V Williams; W S Clark; J Nurss
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method.

Authors:  J M L Williamson; A G Martin
Journal:  Int J Clin Pract       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 3.  Ankle conFUSION: The quality and readability of information on the internet relating to ankle arthrodesis.

Authors:  Shane C Irwin; David T Lennon; Ciaran P Stanley; Gerard A Sheridan; James C Walsh
Journal:  Surgeon       Date:  2021-01-12       Impact factor: 2.392

4.  Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Head and Neck Oncology.

Authors:  Saangyoung E Lee; Zainab Farzal; Charles S Ebert; Adam M Zanation
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs.

Authors:  B D Weiss; J S Blanchard; D L McGee; G Hart; B Warren; M Burgoon; K J Smith
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  1994

6.  All I Have Learned, I Have Learned from Google: Why Today's Facial Rejuvenation Patients are Prone to Misinformation, and the Steps We can take to Contend with Unreliable Information.

Authors:  Neil Mehta; Amar Gupta; Michael Nissan
Journal:  Facial Plast Surg       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 1.446

7.  Readability Metrics of Provider Postoperative Handouts in Urology.

Authors:  Fei Lian; Jennifer Lu; Mark D White; Barry A Kogan
Journal:  Urology       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 2.649

8.  How long does it take to assess literacy skills in clinical practice?

Authors:  Kristen Johnson; Barry D Weiss
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

9.  Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Alana Douglas; Rebecca J Kelly-Campbell
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 1.493

Review 10.  An evaluation of the quality of online information on emergency contraception.

Authors:  Simrita Agrawal; Ciara Irwin; Rima K Dhillon-Smith
Journal:  Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care       Date:  2021-03-10       Impact factor: 1.848

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.