David R. Hansberry

Readability Assessment of Patient Education Materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation

Objective Americans are increasingly turning to the Internet as a source of health care information. These online resources should be written at a level readily understood by the average American. This study evaluates the readability of online patient education information available from the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) professional Web site using 7 different assessment tools that analyze the materials for reading ease and grade level of its target audience. Study Design and Setting Analysis of Internet-based patient education material from the AAO-HNSF Web site. Methods Online patient education material from the AAO-HNSF was downloaded in January 2012 and assessed for level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG grading, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning-Fog Index, Raygor Readability Estimate graph, and Fry Readability graph. The text from each subsection was pasted as plain text into Microsoft Word document, and each subsection was subjected to readability analysis using the software package Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2012.1. Results All health care education material assessed is written between an 11th grade and graduate reading level and is considered “difficult to read” by the assessment scales. Conclusions Online patient education materials on the AAO-HNSF Web site are written above the recommended 6th grade level and may need to be revised to make them more easily understood by a broader audience.

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

Objective Various otolaryngology associations provide Internet-based patient education material (IPEM) to the general public. However, this information may be written above the fourth- to sixth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of otolaryngology-related IPEMs on various otolaryngology association websites and to determine whether they are above the recommended reading level for patient education materials. Study Design and Setting Analysis of patient education materials from 9 major otolaryngology association websites. Methods The readability of 262 otolaryngology-related IPEMs was assessed with 8 numerical and 2 graphical readability tools. Averages were evaluated against national recommendations and between each source using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) analysis. Mean readability scores for each otolaryngology association website were compared. Results Mean website readability scores using Flesch Reading Ease test, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG grading, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, FORCAST Formula, New Fog Count Test, Raygor Readability Estimate, and the Fry Readability Graph ranged from 20.0 to 57.8, 9.7 to 17.1, 10.7 to 15.9, 11.6 to 18.2, 10.9 to 15.0, 8.6 to 16.0, 10.4 to 12.1, 8.5 to 11.8, 10.5 to 17.0, and 10.0 to 17.0, respectively. ANOVA results indicate a significant difference (P < .05) between the websites for each individual assessment. Conclusion The IPEMs found on all otolaryngology association websites exceed the recommended fourth- to sixth-grade reading level.

Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties

Patients are increasingly using the Internet as a source of information on medical conditions. Because the average American adult reads at a 7th‐ to 8th‐grade level, the National Institutes of Health recommend that patient education material be written between a 4th‐ and 6th‐grade level. In this study, we assess and compare the readability of patient education materials on major surgical subspecialty Web sites relative to otolaryngology.

Readability analysis of healthcare‐oriented education resources from the american academy of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery

Deficient health literacy remains a widespread public issue. As such, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that all patient resources should be written around a sixth‐grade level. The authors evaluate healthcare‐oriented resources specified for patient use on the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) Web site in order to identify potential areas of improvement and highlight those sections that may serve as paradigms for future revisions.

A Comparative Analysis of the Quality of Patient Education Materials From Medical Specialties

1. Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, et al; American Heart Association; Council on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research; Council on Cardiovascular Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention; Council on Cardiovascular Surgery and Anesthesia. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125(15):1928-1952.

Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials.

The extensive amount of medical literature available on the Internet is frequently accessed by patients. To effectively contribute to healthcare decision‐making, these online resources should be worded at a level that is readable by any patient seeking information. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend the readability of patient information material should be between a 4th to 6th grade level. In this study, we evaluate the readability of online patient education information available from the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) website using 9 different assessment tools that analyze the materials for reading ease and grade level of the target audience.

Health Literacy and Online Educational Resources: An Opportunity to Educate Patients

OBJECTIVE Given the increasing accessibility of material on the Internet and the use of these materials by patients as a source of health care information, the purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the level of readability of resources made available on the European Society of Radiology website to determine whether these materials meet the health literacy needs of the general public as set forth by guidelines of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA). MATERIALS AND METHODS All 41 patient education articles created by the European Society of Radiology (ESR) were downloaded and analyzed with the following 10 quantitative readability scales: the Coleman-Liau Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, FORCAST Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall, New Fog Count, Raygor Reading Estimate, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. RESULTS The 41 articles were written collectively at a mean grade level of 13.0 ± 1.6 with a range from 10.8 to 17.2. For full understanding of the material, 73.2% of the articles required the reading comprehension level of, at minimum, a high school graduate (12th grade). CONCLUSION The patient education resources on the ESR website are written at a comprehension level well above that of the average Internet viewer. The resources fail to meet the NIH and AMA guidelines that patient education material be written between the third and seventh grade levels. Recasting these resources in a simpler format would probably lead to greater comprehension by ESR website viewers.

A comparative analysis of neurosurgical online education materials to assess patient comprehension

Americans have increasingly utilized the internet as a first-line resource for a variety of information, including healthcare-oriented materials. Therefore, these online resources should be written at a level the average American can understand. Patient education resources specifically written for and available to the public were downloaded from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website and assessed for their level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Grading, Coleman-Liau Index, and Gunning-Fog Index. A total of 71 subsections from different neurosurgical specialties were reviewed, including Cerebrovascular, Spine and Peripheral Nerves, Neurotrauma and Critical Care, Pain, Pediatric, Stereotactic and Functional, and Tumor material. All neurosurgical subspecialty education material provided on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website was uniformly written at a level that was too high, as assessed by all modalities. In order to reach a larger patient population, patient education materials on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website should be revised with the goal of simplifying readability.

Are we effectively informing patients? A quantitative analysis of on-line patient education resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology.

The readability of 20 patient education articles found on the ASNR Web site were evaluated using 10 quantitative readability scales and compared with those found on the Web site of the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery. The authors concluded that the patient education resources on both Web sites failed to meet the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association. Members of the public may fail to fully understand these resources and would benefit from revisions that result in more comprehensible information cast in simpler language. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The ubiquitous use of the Internet by the public in an attempt to better understand their health care requires the on-line resources written at an appropriate level to maximize comprehension for the average user. The National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Association recommend on-line patient education resources written at a third-to-seventh grade level. We evaluated the readability of the patient education resources provided on the Web site of the American Society of Neuroradiology (http://www.asnr.org/patientinfo/). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patient education material from the ASNR Web site and the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery Web site were downloaded and evaluated with the computer software, Readability Studio Professional Edition, by using 10 quantitative readability scales: the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall, FORCAST Formula, Fry Graph, Raygor Reading Estimate, and New Fog Count. An unpaired t test was used to compare the readability level of resources available on the American Society of Neuroradiology and the Society of Neurointerventional Surgery Web sites. RESULTS: The 20 individual patient education articles were written at a 13.9 ± 1.4 grade level with only 5% written at <11th grade level. There was no statistical difference between the level of readability of the resources on the American Society of Neuroradiology and Society of Neurointerventional Surgery Web sites. CONCLUSIONS: The patient education resources on these Web sites fail to meet the guidelines of the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association. Members of the public may fail to fully understand these resources and would benefit from revisions that result in more comprehensible information cast in simpler language.

Are we failing to communicate? Internet-based patient education materials and radiation safety

INTRODUCTION Patients frequently turn to the Internet when seeking answers to healthcare related inquiries including questions about the effects of radiation when undergoing radiologic studies. We investigate the readability of online patient education materials concerning radiation safety from multiple Internet resources. METHODS Patient education material regarding radiation safety was downloaded from 8 different websites encompassing: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2) the Environmental Protection Agency, (3) the European Society of Radiology, (4) the Food and Drug Administration, (5) the Mayo Clinic, (6) MedlinePlus, (7) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and (8) the Society of Pediatric Radiology. From these 8 resources, a total of 45 articles were analyzed for their level of readability using 10 different readability scales. RESULTS The 45 articles had a level of readability ranging from 9.4 to the 17.2 grade level. Only 3/45 (6.7%) were written below the 10th grade level. No statistical difference was seen between the readability level of the 8 different websites. CONCLUSIONS All 45 articles from all 8 websites failed to meet the recommendations set forth by the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education resources be written between the 3rd and 7th grade level. Rewriting the patient education resources on radiation safety from each of these 8 websites would help many consumers of healthcare information adequately comprehend such material.