Applying multiple methods to assess the readability of a large corpus of medical documents

Studies in Health Technology and Informatics

Volumn 192, Issue 1-2, 2013, Pages 647-651

  Wu, Danny T Y ^a   Hanauer, David A ^b   Mei, Qiaozhu ^a   Clark, Patricia M ^a   An, Lawrence C ^a   Lei, Jianbo ^c   Proulx, Joshua ^d   Zeng Treitler, Qing ^d   Zheng, Kai ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c PEKING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^d UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Electronic health records; MedlinePlus; Natural language processing; Readability; Referral letters

Indexed keywords

HEALTH;

ELECTRONIC ACCESS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; HEALTHCARE INSTITUTIONS; INFORMATION TRANSPARENCY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTS; MEDLINEPLUS; READABILITY; REFERRAL LETTERS;

NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING SYSTEMS;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED VOCABULARY; DOCUMENTATION; HUMAN; MEDLINE; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; PROCEDURES; READING;

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE; COMPREHENSION; DOCUMENTATION; HUMANS; MEDLINE; MEDLINEPLUS; NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING; READING; VOCABULARY, CONTROLLED;

EID: 84894337503     PISSN: 09269630     EISSN: 18798365     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.3233/978-1-61499-289-9-647     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (16)

1. Delbanco T, Walker J, Darer JD, et al. Open Notes: Doctors and patients signing on. Ann Intern Med. 2010;153:121-5.
2. Tand PC, Lanksy D. The missing link: Bridging the patient-provider health information gap. Health Affairs 2005;24(5):1920-5.
3. Delbanco T, Walker J, Bell SK, et al. Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: A quasi-experimental study and a look ahead. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(7):461-70.
4. Garner M, Ning Z, Francis J. A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets. Health Expect 2012;15(3):283-94.
5. Rosemblat G, Logan R, Tse T, et al. Text features and readability: Expert evaluation of consumer health text. Mednet 2006.
6. Zeng-Treitler Q, Kim H, Goryachev S, et al. Text characteristics of clinical reports and their implications on the readability of personal health records. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2007;129(Pt 2):1117-21.
7. Terblanche M, Burgess L. Examining the readability of patient-informed consent forms. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials 2010;2:157-62.
8. Adnan M, Warren J, Orr M. Assessing text characteristics of electronic discharge summaries and their implications for patient readability. HIKM 2010;108:77-84.
9. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, et al. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station Memphis, 1975.
10. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: A new readability formula. J Reading 1969;12:639-46.
11. Gunning R. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International Book Co., 1952.
12. Atkinson K. GNU Aspell. http://aspell.net/; accessed March 10, 2011.
13. e-MedTools. OpenMedSpel-Opensource Medical Spelling. http://www.e- medtools.com/openmedspel.html; accessed March 10, 2011.
14. Zheng K, Mei Q, Yang L, et al. Voice-dictated versus typed-in clinician notes: Linguistic properties and the potential implications on natural language processing. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2011;1630-8.
15. Kim H, Goryachev S, Rosemblat G, et al. Beyond surface characteristics: A new health text-specific readability measurement. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007;11:418-22.
16. Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons among means. J Am Statist Assoc.1961;56(293):52-64.