Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites

Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (United States)

Volumn 147, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 848-854

  Eloy, Jean Anderson ^a,b   Li, Shawn ^a   Kasabwala, Khushabu ^a   Agarwa, Nitin ^b   Hansberry, David R ^b   Baredes, Soly ^a   Setzen, Michael ^c,d  

^a RUTGERS NEW JERSEY MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b RWJ Barnabas Health   (United States)

^c NORTH SHORE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Comprehension; Flesch Reading Ease Score; Flesch Kincaid Grade Level; Internet; Internet Based Patient Education Material; Otolaryngology; Otolaryngology Association Websites; Patient Education Materials; Readability; Readability Scores

Indexed keywords

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; MEDICAL LITERATURE; OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION; READING; SCORING SYSTEM; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); COMPREHENSION;

COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; INTERNET; OTOLARYNGOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC;

EID: 84872030850     PISSN: 01945998     EISSN: 10976817     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0194599812456152     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Fox S. Online health search 2006. http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP- Online-Health-2006.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2008.
2. Mobile health information audience jumps 125 percent in the past year. http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2012/01/mobilehealth-information-audience-jumps- 125-percent-in-the-past-year/. Accessed March 20, 2012.
3. Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, Langseth L, Bennett CL, Garcia P. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:938-943.
4. Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM. The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Med. 2005;118:371-377.
5. Weiss BD, Hart G, Pust RE. The relationship between literacy and health. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1991;1:351-363.
6. Health literacy: Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1999;281:552-557.
7. National Institutes of Health. How to write easy to read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed December 7, 2011.
8. Schillinger D, Grumbach K, Piette J, et al. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288:475-482.
9. Bostock S, Steptoe A. Association between low functional health literacy and mortality in older adults: Longitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:e1602.
10. Weiss BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation; 2003.
11. Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation patient education materials [published online April 3, 2012]. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. doi:10.1177/019459981 2442783
12. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32:221-233.
13. Flesch R. How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and Consumers. New York: Harper & Row; 1979.
14. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12(8):639-646.
15. Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60:2.
16. Gunning R. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952.
17. Chall JS. Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline; 1995.
18. Caylor JS, Sticht TG, Fox LC, Ford JP. Methodologies for Determining Reading Requirements of Military Occupational Specialties. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 1973. Tech Rep No. 73-5.
19. Raygor AL. The Raygor Readability Estimate: A quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson PD, ed. Reading: Theory, Research, and Practice-The 26th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference; 1977:259-263.
20. Fry E. A readability formula that saves time. J Reading. 1968; 11:4.
21. Cherla DV, Sanghvi S, Choudhry OJ, Liu JK, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery [published online March 22, 2012]. Laryngoscope. doi:10.1002/lary.23309.
22. Sanghvi S, Cherla DV, Shukla PA, Eloy JA. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope. doi:10.1002/lary. 23424.
23. Greywoode J, Bluman E, Spiegel J, Boon M. Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery website. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:555-558.
24. McAllister KA, Clement WA. Readability and content of postoperative tonsillectomy instructions given to patients in Scotland, a completed audit cycle. Scott Med J. 2012;57(1):4-7.
25. Bergman J, Gore JL, Singer JS, Anger JT, Litwin MS. Readability of health related quality of life instruments in urology. J Urol. 2010;183:1977-1981.
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. 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.
28. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S. Assessing readability of patient education materials: Current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:2572-2580.
29. Schmitt PJ, Prestigiacomo CJ. Readability of neurosurgeryrelated patient education materials provided by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health [published online November 7, 2011]. World Neurosurg.
30. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of Internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008;53:1310-1315.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Sillence E, Briggs P, Fishwick L, Harris P. Trust and mistrust of online health sites. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Vienna, Austria: ACM, 2004:663-670.