Evaluation of the Readability of Dermatological Postoperative Patient Information Leaflets Across England

Are adult thoracic patient education materials designed with patients in mind?

OBJECTIVE

Patients are increasingly using the internet to obtain health care information. US News and World Report Best Hospital rankings received more than 103 million views in 2021. Considering 21% of thoracic surgery patients are minorities, 27.9% are in the bottom quartile of household income, and 70% have Medicare/Medicaid or no insurance, online patient educational materials (PEMs) should be accessible and written at a level easily understood by majority of patients. We performed a comprehensive analysis of readability of websites containing patient-centered resources across all adult thoracic surgery areas.

METHODS

Online PEMs on thoracic surgical procedures were collected from top 50 hospitals for pulmonology and lung surgery ranked by US News and World Report Best Hospital as of December 1, 2021. Text pertaining to thoracic surgical procedures was collected and divided into 4 procedural genres: esophageal, lung, transplant procedures, and other. Texts were analyzed using OleanderSoftware's Readability Suite through the Raygor readability test.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy-two articles met criteria for analysis. Websites were difficult to read; mean (standard deviation) readability score for all content required a 13.9 (3.6) grade level for comprehension. The mean (standard deviation) readability for esophageal, lung, lung transplant, and other surgeries were 14.5 (3.6), 13.1 (3.6), 11.5 (3.9), and 13.4 (3.7), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Online PEMs required at least a college reading level to comprehend, well exceeding the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. As digital health becomes increasingly relevant, improving the readability of online PEMs in adult cardiac surgery will facilitate equitable access to high-quality care.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the quality and reliability of medical information, the technical quality of the presentation of information, and the readability of informational websites that publish content on the definition, causes, symptoms, and treatment of glaucoma.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess information published on websites with regard to glaucoma.

SUBJECTS

The top 150 websites populated on a Google search using the keywords glaucoma, high intraocular pressure, and high eye pressure were chosen for evaluation.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers assessed quality and reliability of each website using the DISCERN, Health on the Net Code (HONcode), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. The reviewers also evaluated technical quality by determining each website's ability to satisfy 10 unique features. Readability was assessed using the Readability Studio software (Oleander Software).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Quality of information was analyzed using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria. To assess readability, the Bormuth Cloze Mean, Bormuth Grade Placement, Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Readability Score, Fry Estimate, Raygor Estimate, and the Overall Mean Readability metrics were used. A separate subanalysis categorized websites into institutional and private categories.

RESULTS

Readability was poor among all websites, with most websites requiring a reading level higher than the 11th grade. The overall mean DISCERN score ± standard deviation (SD) was 3.0 ± 0.4, the mean HONcode score ± SD was 9.6 ± 1.8, and the mean JAMA score ± SD was 2.1 ± 1.1. The reviewers had moderate to excellent interrater reliability. Institutional websites (n = 39) had a higher mean DISCERN score (3.18 ± 0.33 vs. 2.95 ± 0.39, P < 0.05) and mean HONcode score (10.18 ± 1.90 vs. 9.34 ± 1.71, P < 0.05) than those of private websites (n = 111). Technical quality was higher among institutional websites (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

An overwhelming majority of websites presented information of low quality, reliability, and readability. Institutional websites generally received higher scores than those received by private websites; however, overall scores were still substandard, which necessitates improvement of online information on glaucoma.

Readability assessment of the British Association of Dermatologists' patient information leaflets

BACKGROUND

The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) develops and produces patient information leaflets (PILs) for British clinicians and the general public, and its website provides access to all the PILs. Health literacy across the UK remains variable. Readability instruments assess the comprehensibility of text, predominately using a composite of sentence length and/or word-syllable number. Instruments usually report text readability categorized by United States (US) grades; ideally, health literature should be rated at US grade ≤ 6 (UK Year 7; age 11-12 years).

METHODS

In collaboration with the BAD, PILs on the BAD website (n = 203) were downloaded for readability assessment. PILs were processed prior to analysis using Readability Studio software (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH, USA). Established readability metrics were used: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning fog index (GFI), Fry, FORCAST and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE).

RESULTS

The mean (95% CI) US grade levels for all BAD PILs were: 9.8 (9.7-10.0) for FK, 12.1 (12.0-12.3) for SMOG, 11.8 (11.6-11.9) for GFI, 11.5 (11.1-11.8) for Fry and 10.7 (10.6-10.8) for FORCAST. For FRE, the level is reported from a normal spectrum of 0-100, and was found to be 52.2 (95% CI 34.0-78.0) in this study. In the UK context, the mean readability levels of the BAD PILs were rated as Year 10 (age 14-15 years) for FK and Year 13 (aged 17-18 years) for SMOG. For FK, outputs, only 1.0% of PILs (2 of 203) were the recommended US grade ≤ 6 according to FK, and for SMOG rating, none was rated at this level.

DISCUSSION

The majority of BAD PILs have been written at a level that will be challenging for some patients to read. Reducing sentence length and aiming for shorter words will improve accessibility.

Evaluation of Australian dermatological postoperative patient information leaflets: Should we have a national checklist?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Patient information leaflets (PILs) are frequently provided to patients following dermatological surgery to provide advice and reassurance in the community. This evaluation reviewed the guidance specified in postoperative PILs across the 40 Australian dermatology teaching departments and clinics.

METHODS

All 40 departments and clinics were identified and asked to provide their postoperative information leaflets on sutured wound care (preferable) or excision biopsy (September-October 2015). For each PIL, 10 preselected parameters were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 28/40 (70%) of units responded. From these units, 11/28 (39.3%) stated they do not use a postoperative PIL. Of the 17 units that provided PILs, the mode minimum dressing duration was 24 (6/17; 35.3%) and 48 h (6/17; 35.3%). For haemostatic advice, 12 PILs specified the time to press on a bleeding wound, with the most common advice being 10 (3/12; 25%) and 20 min (3/12; 25%). Of the 14 PILs that provided analgesic advice, the mode information suggested using paracetamol only and avoiding aspirin (4/14, 28.6%). Two or more signs of infection were stated in 11/17 (64.7%) PILs; 7/17 (41.2%) advised applying petroleum jelly to the wound, almost all PILs highlighted the contact for postoperative problems 16/17 (94.1%), and 5/17 (29.4%) leaflets mentioned scarring. Altogether 8/17 (47.1%) of PILs advised on the timeframe until active exercise could resume postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Guidance provided in Australian postoperative dermatological PILs is heterogeneous. A consensus checklist or template would be beneficial and ensure that advice provided to patients is more consistent; this could be adapted for local factors.