Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and neck surgery foundation

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

Volumn 147, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 466-471

  Kasabwala, Khushabu ^a   Agarwal, Nitin ^b   Hansberry, David R ^b   Baredes, Soly ^a   Eloy, Jean Anderson ^a,b  

^a RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b RWJ Barnabas Health   (United States)

Author keywords

AAO HNSF patient education materials; Flesch Reading Ease score; Flesch Kincaid Grade Level; Internet; Internet based patient education material; otolaryngology; patient education; patient education material; readability

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT TOOL; HEAD AND NECK SURGERY; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; ONLINE ANALYSIS; PATIENT EDUCATION; READING;

COMPREHENSION; COMPUTER-ASSISTED INSTRUCTION; HUMANS; INFORMATION SEEKING BEHAVIOR; INTERNET; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; SOCIETIES, MEDICAL; SOFTWARE;

EID: 84865654369     PISSN: 01945998     EISSN: 10976817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0194599812442783     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Kubba H. Reading skills of otolaryngology outpatients: implications for information provision. J Laryngol Otol. 2000 ; 114: 694-696
2. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education ; 2006 :
3. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 ; 468: 2572-2580
4. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008 ; 53: 1310-1315
5. Lauder B, Gabel-Jorgensen N. Research briefs: recent research on health literacy, medication adherence, and patient outcomes. Home Healthc Nurse. 2008 ; 26: 255-257
6. Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM. Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health. 2005 ; 30: 213-219 (Pubitemid 40362718)
7. Weis BD Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation ; 2003 :
8. National Institutes of Health. How to write easy to read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed January 4, 2012.
9. Pew Internet & American Life Project. What users do online - trend data. http://www.pewinternet.org/Static-Pages/Trend-Data/Online-Activites-Total. aspx. Accessed January 4, 2012.
10. Rice RE. Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform. 2006 ; 75: 8-28 (Pubitemid 43075559)
11. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Readability of patient education materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America web sites. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008 ; 90: 199-204
12. Vives M, Young L, Sabharwal S. Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009 ; 34: 2826-2831
13. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L, Arocha JF. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006 ; 31: 67-87
14. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948 ; 32: 221-233
15. Flesch R How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and Consumers. New York: Harper & Row ; 1979 :
16. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969 ; 12: 8
17. Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol. 1975 ; 60: 2
18. Gunning R The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill ; 1952 :
19. Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R. Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Couns. 1996 ; 27: 123-134 (Pubitemid 26092400)
20. Kandula S, Zeng-Treitler Q. Creating a gold standard for the readability measurement of health texts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2008: 353-357
21. Raygor AL. The Raygor Readability Estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. National Reading Conference ; Clemson, SC ;. 259.
22. Fry E. A readability formula that saves time. J Reading. 1968 ; 11: 4
23. Patel PP, Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ciminello FS. Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions. J Craniofac Surg. 2011 ; 22: 1179-1182
24. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001 ; 285: 2612-2621 (Pubitemid 32479901)
25. Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM. The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Educ. 1992 ; 7: 251-260
26. Sabharwal S, Badarudeen S, Unes Kunju S. Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS Web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008 ; 466: 1245-1250
27. Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 ; 61: 173-190
28. McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 ; 63: 24-28 (Pubitemid 44331549)
29. Pace B. Health information on the Internet. JAMA. 2001 2672 ; 285 :
30. Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin. 1998 ; 48: 151-162 (Pubitemid 28383261)