Assessment of American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association-Approved Teams' Websites for Patient-Oriented Content and Readability

Craniosynostosis: Are Online Resources Readable?

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to analyze the readability of online craniosynostosis materials from the perspective of a caregiver, and to assess if readability levels conform to recommendations by the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional investigation in which an internet search was conducted simulating the search terms of a caregiver of a patient with craniosynostosis. The first three pages of resulting records were calculated for comprehension ease using validated readability indices. Records were also classified by author type, including hospital system, national health organization, academic journal, and other.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Gunning fog Index, SMOG Index, and Coleman Liau Index.

RESULTS

Thirty records were identified for which the mean readability level was 12.8 ± 2.6 grade levels (range, 7.6-15.9). There were no significant differences in mean readability across readability indices or author type. None of the thirty records met levels recommended by the AMA or NIH and were 6.8 grade levels above these guidelines on average.

CONCLUSIONS

Online material pertaining to craniosynostosis is written, on average, at the reading level of a first-year undergraduate student. The AMA and NIH recommend that articles be written at approximately a sixth-grade reading level to promote comprehension. Therefore, there is significant room for improvement of current online materials. Authors should consider consulting publicly available guides in preparing future resources.

Choosing a Multidisciplinary Cleft and Craniofacial Team: Medical, Surgical, and Social Considerations

Cleft and craniofacial conditions often present with a variety of functional and esthetic sequelae optimally treated by a multidisciplinary approach. Diagnosis of such conditions pre- or postnatally may evoke parental uncertainty and anxiety, and an important primary consideration is the selection of a cleft and craniofacial team. Identifying an optimal team may be particularly important for developing long-term relationships with clinicians who will ideally work intimately with the family from diagnosis to adulthood. While families, parents, and providers should consider several factors, a dearth of evidence-based suggestions preclude critical appraisal of cleft and craniofacial teams. In this article, the authors summarize medical, surgical, and social considerations for selecting a cleft and craniofacial team to optimize patient outcomes and the family/caregiver experience.

Measuring Outcomes in Aesthetic Surgery by Board-Certified Plastic Surgeons

SUMMARY

Aesthetic surgery is a visual specialty in which plastic surgeons and patients work together to enhance or restore facial and body harmony. The field of aesthetic surgery is advanced through descriptive technical procedures and outcomes research. With increasing competition in cosmetic medicine, aesthetic surgery stands to benefit from an evidence-based approach to document the high standards of care from board-certified plastic surgeons. In this article, the authors highlight challenges, current objective and subjective outcomes, and a path forward.

The Quality of CLP-Related Information for Patients Provided by ChatGPT

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality, reliability, readability, and similarity of the data that a recently created NLP-based artificial intelligence model ChatGPT 4 provides to users in Cleft Lip and Palate (CLP)-related information.

DESIGN

In the evaluation of the responses provided by the OpenAI ChatGPT to the CLP-related 50 questions, several tools were utilized, including the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, Reliability Scoring System (Adapted from DISCERN), Flesh Reading Ease Formula (FRES) and Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level (FKRGL) formulas, Global Quality Scale (GQS), and Similarity Index with plagiarism-detection tool. Jamovi (The Jamovi Project, 2022, version 2.3; Sydney, Australia) software was used for all statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Based on the reliability and GQS values, ChatGPT demonstrated high reliability and good quality attributable to CLP. Furthermore, according to the FRES results, ChatGPT's readability is difficult, and the similarity index values of this software exhibit an acceptable level of similarity ratio. There is no significant difference in EQIP, Reliability Score System, FRES, FKGRL, GQS, and Similarity Index values among the two categories.

CONCLUSION

OpenAI ChatGPT provides a highly reliable, high-quality, but challenging to read, and acceptable similarity rate in providing information related to CLP. Ensuring that information obtained through these models is verified and assessed by a qualified medical expert is crucial.

Is the Message Clear? Evaluation of Readability Levels for Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, and Craniofacial Websites

Web-based health information is the leading source of medical knowledge for patients and families. The American Medical Association (AMA) and US Department of Health and Human Services recommend reading material be at or below a sixth-grade reading level. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the readability of the most popularly searched cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) and other craniofacial syndrome (CFS) websites.

Google searches for "cleft lip," "cleft palate," and "craniofacial syndromes" were performed to identify the top 40 websites in an incognito window with the location set to the United States. Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was used to determine ease of reading from 0 (most difficult) to 100 (greatest ease of reading) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade (FKGL) for website content and compared between websites using an FRES of 80 to 90 and FKGL of 6.0 to 6.9 for a sixth-grade reading level.

Readability was low for all sites with 6 CL/P websites and no CFS websites at or below a sixth-grade reading level. CL/P websites had FRES readability scores of 58.5 ± 12.3 and were at a 9.4 ± 2.3 grade level. CFS websites had readability scores on the FRES of 39.8 ± 13.1 and were at a 10.8 ± 1.8 grade level.

Web-based information related to CL/P and CFS is on average several grade levels above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Online information for CL/P and CFS may need to be revised to improve understanding for the public and families.

Availability and Readability Level of Online Patient Education Materials Provided by Cleft Lip and Palate Teams

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the readability of online English and Spanish cleft lip and palate patient education materials.

DESIGN

Review of free online materials.

SETTING

English and Spanish language online patient education materials on cleft lip and palate were collected from American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams.

PARTICIPANTS

American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams.

INTERVENTIONS

English materials were analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, and Coleman-Liau readability calculators. Spanish materials were analyzed using the Fry Graph, Fernandez Huerta, and INFLESZ calculators. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for variability between the readability tools.

OUTCOMES

Readability levels were examined for both sets of materials.

RESULTS

171 (90.5%) teams provided English language materials online, with an average readability score calculated as 10.5 ± 2.9 (10th-11th grade). A total of 44 (23.2%) teams listed Spanish language materials online, with average readability score of 7.9 ± 1.2 (8th grade). ANOVA demonstrated statistically significant variability between the readability assessment tools (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

Online cleft lip and palate patient education material provided by ACPA craniofacial teams were more available in English than in Spanish. Both sets of materials demonstrated readability levels above the recommended 6th-7th grade. Refining readability is associated with lowered healthcare costs and increased patient satisfaction.

Factors Affecting Engagement in Web-Based Health Care Patient Information: Narrative Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Web-based content is rapidly becoming the primary source of health care information. There is a pressing need for web-based health care content to not only be accurate but also be engaging. Improved engagement of people with web-based health care content has the potential to inform as well as influence behavioral change to enable people to make better health care choices. The factors associated with better engagement with web-based health care content have previously not been considered.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study are to identify the factors that affect engagement with web-based health care content and develop a framework to be considered when creating such content.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of the PubMed and MEDLINE database was performed from January 1, 1946, to January 5, 2020. The reference lists of all included studies were also searched. The Medical Subject Headings database was used to derive the following keywords: "patient information," "online," "internet," "web," and "content." All studies in English pertaining to the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care patient information were included. No restrictions were set on the study type. Analysis of the themes arising from the results was performed using inductive content analysis.

RESULTS

The search yielded 814 articles, of which 56 (6.9%) met our inclusion criteria. The studies ranged from observational and noncontrolled studies to quasi-experimental studies. Overall, there was significant heterogeneity in the types of interventions and outcome assessments, which made quantitative assessment difficult. Consensus among all authors of this study resulted in six categories that formed the basis of a framework to assess the factors affecting engagement in web-based health care content: easy to understand, support, adaptability, accessibility, visuals and content, and credibility and completeness.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a paucity of high-quality data relating to the factors that improve the quality of engagement with web-based health care content. Our framework summarizes the reported studies, which may be useful to health care content creators. An evaluation of the utility of web-based content to engage users is of significant importance and may be accessible through tools such as the Net Promoter score. Web 3.0 technology and development of the field of psychographics for health care offer further potential for development. Future work may also involve improvement of the framework through a co-design process.