A Critical Review of the Readability of Online Patient Education Resources From RadiologyInfo.Org

被引:67
作者
Hansberry, David R. [1 ]
John, Ann [1 ]
John, Elizabeth [2 ]
Agarwal, Nitin [3 ]
Gonzales, Sharon F. [1 ]
Baker, Stephen R. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Med Sch, Dept Radiol, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
[2] Univ Cent Florida, Coll Med, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[3] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Med Sch, Dept Neurol Surg, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
关键词
Internet; patient education; radiology; readability; HEALTH INFORMATION; OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD; AMERICAN ACADEMY; INTERNET; SURGERY; FORMULA; QUALITY; CARE;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.13.11223
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. Health consumers and their families rely on the Internet as a source of authoritative information regarding the procedures used to reach a diagnosis, effect treatment, and influence prognosis. In radiology, online materials can be a means by which to offer patients comprehensible explanations of the capabilities, the risks and rewards, and the techniques under our purview. Consequently, estimations of health literacy should take into account the reading level of the average American when composing and transmitting such information to the lay public without the mediation of a referring physician. MATERIALS AND METHODS. In December 2012, patient education reports from the files of RadiologyInfo. org, a jointly sponsored website of the American College of Radiology and the Radiological Society of North America, were downloaded to assess their textual sophistication. All 138 patient education articles including the glossary were analyzed for their respective level of " readability" using the following 10 evaluative scales: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Grading, ColemanLiau Index, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall scale, FORCAST, Fry graph, Raygor Readability Estimate, and New Fog Count. RESULTS. The 138 online patient education articles were written, on average, between the 10th and 14th grade levels, which exceeds both the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health recommendations that patient education resources be comprehensible to those who read no higher than the seventh grade level. CONCLUSION. Patients may accrue a greater benefit from written articles available on RadiologyInfo. org if the texts were revised to be in compliance with the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association grade level recommendations. This could lead to a broadened appreciation of the capabilities of radiology's role in general and enhanced understanding of imaging techniques and their application to clinical practice.
引用
收藏
页码:566 / 575
页数:10
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]   A Comparative Analysis of the Quality of Patient Education Materials From Medical Specialties [J].
Agarwal, Nitin ;
Hansberry, David R. ;
Sabourin, Victor ;
Tomei, Krystal L. ;
Prestigiacomo, Charles J. .
JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2013, 173 (13) :1257-1259
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2011, Demographics of Internet users
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2011, SOCIAL LIFE HLTH INF
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1977, READING THEORY RES P
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2006, 2006483 NCES US DEP
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2008, AM HLTH LIT WHY WE N
[7]  
Canadian Public Health Association, 1998, EAS DOES IT PLAIN LA
[8]  
Caylor J.S., 1973, Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialities
[9]  
Chall Jeanne Sternlicht, 1995, Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula
[10]   Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery [J].
Cherla, Deepa V. ;
Sanghvi, Saurin ;
Choudhry, Osamah J. ;
Liu, James K. ;
Eloy, Jean Anderson .
LARYNGOSCOPE, 2012, 122 (08) :1649-1654