Evaluation of the Informational Content and Readability of US Lung Cancer Screening Program Websites

Are plain language summaries more readable than scientific abstracts? Evidence from six biomedical and life sciences journals

In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.

An evaluation of readability and understandability of online education materials for breast cancer survivors

PURPOSE

We aimed to determine the availability of existing web-based educational materials on breast cancer survivorship and assess their readability and understandability.

METHODS

We identified materials eligible for review in two ways: (1) reviews of websites of major cancer-related organizations (e.g., American Cancer Society); (2) Google searches for breast cancer survivorship, breast cancer, breast cancer follow-up care, and cancer survivorship. We measured Flesch-Kincaid and New Dale Readability of existing breast cancer and breast cancer survivorship materials. Readability grade levels 5 to 8 were considered ideal to acceptable. We used the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to measure the understandability of 53 videos and 152 written materials, such as booklets and manuals. A resource was considered understandable and/or actionable if it scored ≥ 70% on either the understandability section or the actionability section of the PEMAT.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 205 existing materials including brochures, booklets, facts sheets, websites, and videos in English. The average Flesch-Kincaid grade score of written educational materials was 9.7 (range 3.5-16.4), which translates to a 9th grade reading level. According to the New Dale-Chall readability assessment, most of the materials were in the 9 to 10 grade level range. The average PEMAT score was 88.6% (range 56-100%).

CONCLUSION

Patient educational materials are available online as printable, written materials, and videos and they focus on a wide selection of survivorship-related topics. Most of the breast cancer educational materials that are available online were above an 8th grade reading level. The PEMAT results, however, suggest that materials are easy to understand regarding word choice and style, use of numbers, organization, layout and design, and use of visual aids.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Understandable patient education materials are essential for guiding breast cancer survivors towards improving their health outcomes and optimizing their quality of life.

Understanding Health-Related Social Risks

Because of the established contribution of social factors to health outcomes, approaches that address upstream determinants of health have increasingly been recognized as cost-effective means to improve population health. Understanding and usage of precise terminology is important to facilitate collaboration across disciplines. Social determinants of health affect everyone, not just the socially and economically disadvantaged, whereas health-related social risks (HRSR) are specific adverse conditions at the individual or family level that are associated with poor health and related to the immediate challenges individuals face. Health-related social needs account for patient preference in addressing identified social risks. The use of validated screening tools is important to capture risk factors in a standardized fashion to support research and quality improvement. There is a paucity of studies that address HRSR in the context of radiology. This review provides an understanding of HRSR and outlines various ways in which radiologists can work to mitigate them.

Advancing Health Equity in Lung Cancer Screening and the Role of Humanomics

Identifying and managing lung cancer, the leading cause of cancer-specific mortality, depend on multiple medical and sociodemographic factors. Humanomics is a model that acknowledges that negative societal stressors from systemic inequity affect individual health by altering pro-inflammatory gene expression. The same factors which may predispose individuals to lung cancer may also obstruct equitably prompt diagnosis and treatment. Increasing lung cancer screening access can lessen disparities in outcomes among disproportionately affected communities. Here, the authors describe several individual, provider, and health system-level obstacles to lung cancer screening and offer actionable solutions to increase access.

LungCARE: Encouraging Shared Decision-Making in Lung Cancer Screening-a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.

DESIGN

Pilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.

INTERVENTION

Providers were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.

MAIN MEASURES

All eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.

KEY RESULTS

A total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

LungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03862001.

Analyzing the Quality and Readability of Online Hyaluronic Acid Knee Injection Resources

INTRODUCTION

We analyzed the quality of information about Hyaluronic acid (HA) knee injections for osteoarthritis using DISCERN, a tool that grades the quality of websites. We also analyzed readability with Flesch-Kincaid grade reading levels (FKGRL).

METHODS

Lists of the top ten included sites from Google searches about HA injections were evaluated using DISCERN to determine their quality. Additional variables collected were site category, Health on Net (HON) certification, search result rank, and FKGRL. DISCERN scores were compared and grouped by these variables.

RESULTS

Most sites were measured as fair in quality. Greater DISCERN scores were produced from searches using general terminology, sites with HON labels, and academic journal publications.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates information quality for HA injections online is fair. The data also indicates that patients can best educate themselves using HON labels, general search terms, and information from academic journals when possible.

Cross-sectional review of US websites providing lung cancer screening recommendations following the 2021 US Preventive Services Task Force updates

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and an urgent public health priority. Early detection by low-dose CT (LDCT) screening and treatment of lung cancer has been shown to reduce mortality but uptake remains dismal, particularly among historically underserved groups. Following the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) expansion of its eligibility criteria to address inequities in utilization, efforts are needed to ensure dissemination of updated health information through digital means such as websites.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to investigate whether online websites have been updated to reflect the recent USPSTF guidelines that expanded the recommended age and smoking pack-years for lung cancer screening.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we identified websites that provide information on lung cancer screening guidelines on May 24, 2022, approximately one year after the emergence of the updated USPSTF guidelines. The websites were assessed for recommended age to begin lung cancer screening and smoking pack-year quantity.

RESULTS

Our study found that a lag in dissemination of updated lung cancer screening information exists. Approximately 1 year after the USPSTF guidelines were updated, 17-32% of websites providing information on lung cancer screening guidelines had not been updated.

CONCLUSION

Routine monitoring of websites that provide information on lung cancer screening can help reduce misinformation, improve uptake of lung cancer screening, and prevent delays in diagnostic evaluation which disproportionally affects traditionally underserved populations.

Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force lung cancer screening update on drivers of disparities in screening eligibility

BACKGROUND

In 2021, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its recommendation to expand lung cancer screening (LCS) eligibility and mitigate disparities. Although this increased the number of non-White individuals who are eligible for LCS, the update's impact on drivers of disparities is less clear. This analysis focuses on racial disparities among Black individuals because members of this group disproportionately share late-stage lung cancer diagnoses, despite typically having a lower intensity smoking history compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.

METHODS

We used data from the National Health Interview Survey to examine the impact of the 2021 eligibility criteria on racial disparities by factors such as education, poverty, employment history, and insurance status. We also examined preventive care use and reasons for delaying medical care.

RESULTS

When comparing Black individuals and non-Hispanic White individuals, our analyses show significant differences in who would be eligible for LCS: Those who do not have a high school diploma (28.7% vs. 17.0%, p = 0.002), are in poverty (26.2% vs. 14.9%, p < 0.001), and have not worked in the past 12 months (66.5% vs. 53.9%, p = 0.009). Further, our analyses also show that more Black individuals delayed medical care due to not having transportation (11.1% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001) compared to non-Hispanic White individuals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that despite increasing the number of Black individuals who are eligible for LCS, the 2021 USPSTF recommendation highlights ongoing socioeconomic disparities that need to be addressed to ensure equitable access.

Qualitative Assessment of Quality and Readability of Patient-Directed Online Resources for Cochlear Implants in Children

OBJECTIVE

Children with sensorineural hearing loss can benefit from cochlear implantation (CI). Patients can obtain direct access to medical information on the internet. However, the internet is uncontrolled, and the quality and readability of information are unpredictable. The quality and readability of websites providing information about CI in children were assessed in this study.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Online search.

METHODS

The 3 most popular search engines (Google, Bing, and Yahoo) were queried with the phrases "cochlear implant" and "cochlear implant in children." The DISCERN instrument was used to assess the information quality. The readability was evaluated using 5 validated readability indices.

RESULTS

Of 103 websites, the median DISCERN quality score was 33 (interquartile range [IQR], 27-41). Only 5 websites were considered to be of good quality, and 1 was excellent. The median readability school grade was 11th (IQR, 10-12), which fell within the range defined as difficult. No website was at or below the recommended sixth-grade level. There was no correlation between readability and the DISCERN scores (r = -0.105, p = .291).

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that most websites with information on CI for children are of variable quality and are written beyond the reading ability of the general population. Website builders should focus on improving the readability of their online material to help the average reader understand and benefit from the content.

Assessing the Accuracy, Quality, and Readability of Information Related to the Surgical Management of Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia

Objectives: To assess the accuracy, quality, and readability of online educational health information in English related to the most common benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) guideline-approved surgical treatments. Methods: The terms "benign prostatic hyperplasia," "BPH," and all eight guideline-approved treatment modalities studied, were searched to retrieve the first five relevant websites and first two paid advertised websites related to the surgical treatment options for BPH. These modalities included transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), GreenLight photovaporization, endoscopic enucleation of the prostate, Rezum, Urolift, Aquablation, open simple prostatectomy, and robotic simple prostatectomy (RSP). All relevant websites were assessed for their accuracy, quality, and readability using standardized scoring systems. Results: The mean accuracy score for each of the treatment modalities were all indicative of good accuracy, with 76%-99% of the information presented as being accurate. The median quality score was statistically different across the eight treatment modalities (p = 0.015). The median readability grade level was statistically different across the eight treatment modalities (p = 0.009). Websites that described TURP (median readability grade level, 9.00 [interquartile range (IQR) 8.00-10.80]) were significantly easier to read than those related to RSP (median readability grade level, 14.35 [IQR, 11.08-16.50]) (p = 0.011). No other statistically significant differences were found within the other treatment modality websites. Conclusions: The majority of websites retrieved were found to be of high accuracy, good quality, and poor readability. Additionally, it was found that none of the retrieved websites included descriptions for all the other included treatment modalities. Given these findings, the authors recommend the development of centralized resources with all guideline-approved treatment modalities and accurate, readable, and high-quality information related to the surgical treatment of BPH.

Assessing information available for health professionals and potential participants on lung cancer screening program websites: a cross-sectional study (Preprint)

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years) and reducing the number of pack-years used to estimate total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (from 30). With many individuals using the internet to find health care information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screening participants.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional analysis of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States with information for health professionals and potential screening participants was conducted in March 2021. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential screening participants and presence of information available specific to health professionals about lung cancer screening were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost and smoking cessation, inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, mention of any clinical guidelines, and use of multimedia to present information.

Results

Eligibility criteria for lung cancer screening was included in nearly all 151 websites (n=142, 94%), as well as age range (n=139, 92.1%) and smoking history (n=141, 93.4%). Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% (n=22) of websites, and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites (n=76, 50.3%) mentioned screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. A total of 23 (15.2%) websites featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. The same proportion (n=23, 15.2%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. In total, 44 (29.1%) websites referred to smoking cessation, and 46 (30.5%) websites used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts.

Conclusions

Most websites of US lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.

Readability Assessment of HPV Vaccination and Cervical Cancer Information: A Systematic Scoping Review

It is important to provide information on HPV vaccination and on early detection and early treatment for cervical cancer. Readability is a key aspect in the success of cancer communication using written health information. We reviewed studies assessing the readability of information on HPV vaccination and cervical cancer. We conducted a systematic literature search in June 2021 using four online databases (Medline, CINAHL, PsycArticles, and PsycINFO). Studies that assessed the readability level of online and offline information regarding HPV vaccination and cervical cancer were included in the review. Twelve articles were deemed fit for study inclusion. Our results showed that most of the materials assessed were difficult to read and higher than eighth-grade reading level. Few of the materials assessed were at the recommended grade 5-6 level or below. Readability assessments of HPV vaccination and cervical cancer information are scarce. Additional studies on the readability of information regarding HPV vaccination and cervical cancer are recommended. Health professionals should develop health information on HPV vaccination and cervical cancer that is easy to read.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility

Background To address disparities in lung cancer screening (LCS) that may exclude large numbers of high-risk African American smokers, revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations lowered LCS eligibility thresholds. However, there are limited recent data about the impact of newly revised guidelines on disparities in LCS eligibility. Purpose To evaluate the impact of revised USPSTF guidelines on racial and ethnic disparities in LCS eligibility. Materials and Methods Cross-sectional survey data from 20 states were retrospectively evaluated from the 2019 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (median response rate, 49.4%). Respondents without a history of lung cancer aged 55-79 years (ie, under the previous guidelines) or aged 50-79 years (ie, under the revised guidelines) were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between race and ethnicity and LCS eligibility. All analyses were performed accounting for complex survey design features (ie, weighting, stratification, and clustering). Results Under previous guidelines, 11% of 67 567 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [12%], Hispanic [4%], African American [7%], American Indian [17%], Asian or Pacific Islander [4%], and other [12%]). Under revised USPSTF guidelines, 14% of 77 689 weighted survey respondents were eligible for LCS (White [15%], Hispanic [5%], African American [9%], American Indian [21%), Asian or Pacific Islander [5%], and other [18%]). Compared with White respondents, African American respondents (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.36; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.24; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible for LCS under previous guidelines. African American respondents (adjusted OR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.32, 0.47; P < .001) and Hispanic respondents (adjusted OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10, 0.23; P < .001) were less likely to be eligible under the revised guidelines. The Wald test showed no evidence of differences in the degree to which racial and ethnic minority groups were less likely to be eligible for LCS when comparing previous versus revised USPSTF guidelines (P = .76). Conclusion The revised U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines (version 2.0) may perpetuate lung cancer disparities, as racial and ethnic minority groups are still less likely to be eligible for lung cancer screening. © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Jacobs and Springfield in this issue.

Addressing Disparities in Lung Cancer Screening Eligibility and Healthcare Access. An Official American Thoracic Society Statement

Background: There are well-documented disparities in lung cancer outcomes across populations. Lung cancer screening (LCS) has the potential to reduce lung cancer mortality, but for this benefit to be realized by all high-risk groups, there must be careful attention to ensuring equitable access to this lifesaving preventive health measure.Objectives: To outline current knowledge on disparities in eligibility criteria for, access to, and implementation of LCS, and to develop an official American Thoracic Society statement to propose strategies to optimize current screening guidelines and resource allocation for equitable LCS implementation and dissemination.Methods: A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in LCS, implementation science, primary care, pulmonology, health behavior, smoking cessation, epidemiology, and disparities research was convened. Participants reviewed available literature on historical disparities in cancer screening and emerging evidence of disparities in LCS.Results: Existing LCS guidelines do not consider racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex-based differences in smoking behaviors or lung cancer risk. Multiple barriers, including access to screening and cost, further contribute to the inequities in implementation and dissemination of LCS.Conclusions: This statement identifies the impact of LCS eligibility criteria on vulnerable populations who are at increased risk of lung cancer but do not meet eligibility criteria for screening, as well as multiple barriers that contribute to disparities in LCS implementation. Strategies to improve the selection and dissemination of LCS in vulnerable groups are described.

Readability of Online Patient Educational Materials for Coronary Artery Calcium Scans and Implications for Health Disparities

Background

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) scans can help reclassify risk and guide patient‐clinician shared treatment decisions for cardiovascular disease prevention. Patients increasingly access online patient educational materials (OPEMs) to guide medical decision‐making. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that OPEMs should be written below a 6th‐grade reading level. This study estimated the readability of commonly accessed OPEMs on CAC scans.

Methods and Results

The terms “coronary artery calcium scan,” “heart scan,” and “CAC score” were queried using an online search engine to identify the top 50 commonly accessed websites based on order of search results on December 17, 2019. Grade‐level readability was calculated using generalized estimating equations, with observations nested within readability metrics from each website. Results were compared with AMA‐recommended readability parameters. Overall grade‐level readability among all search terms was 10.9 (95% CI, 9.3–12.5). Average grade‐level readability of OPEMs for the search terms “coronary artery calcium scan,” “heart scan,” and “CAC score,” was 10.7 (95% CI, 9.0–12.5), 10.5 (95% CI, 8.9–12.1), and 11.9 (95% CI, 10.3–13.5), respectively. Professional society and news/media/blog websites had the highest average reading grade level of 12.6, while health system websites had the lowest average reading grade level of 10.0. Less than half of the unique websites (45.3%) included explanatory images or videos.

Conclusions

Current OPEMs on CAC scans are written at a higher reading level than recommended for the general public. This may lead to patient misunderstanding, which could exacerbate disparities in cardiovascular health among groups with lower health literacy.

Milestones towards lung cancer screening implementation

The European Society of Radiology (ESR) and European Respiratory Society (ERS) published their joint statement paper on lung cancer screening (LCS), on 12 February 2020. This document joins and completes previous recommendations on LCS with specific emphasis on the analysis of issues encountered in the practical implementation of LCS in the community. Major milestones to enable the most efficient and equal dissemination of LCS are recognised as engagement of all stakeholders (e.g. candidate/participant, general practitioners, up to the specialised LCS facility), quality assurance, and primary prevention in the form of provision of counselling for smoking cessation.

Barriers, Facilitators, and Suggested Interventions for Lung Cancer Screening Among a Rural Screening-Eligible Population

Introduction: Rural areas are disproportionally affected by lung cancer late-stage incidence and mortality. Lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended to find lung cancer early and reduce mortality, yet uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to elucidate the barriers to, facilitators of, and suggested interventions for increasing LCS among a rural screening-eligible population using a mixed methods concurrent embedded design study. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from rural-residing adults who met the eligibility criteria for LCS but who were not up-to-date with LCS recommendations. Study participants (n = 23) took part in 1 of 5 focus groups and completed a survey. Focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed, and coded through a mixed deductive and inductive approach. Survey data were used to enhance and clarify focus group results; these data were integrated in the design and during analysis, in accordance with the mixed methods concurrent embedded design approach. Results: Several key barriers to LCS were identified, including an overall lack of knowledge about LCS, not receiving information or recommendation from a health care provider, and lack of transportation. Key facilitators were receiving a provider recommendation and high motivation to know the screening results. Participants suggested that LCS uptake could be increased by addressing provider understanding and recommendation of LCS and conducting community outreach to promote LCS awareness and access. Conclusion: The results suggest that the rural screening-eligible population is generally receptive to LCS. Patient-level factors important to getting this population screened include knowledge, transportation, motivation to know their screening results, and receiving information or recommendation from a provider. Addressing these factors may be important to increase rural LCS uptake.