Search

Educational print materials for young women breast cancer survivors (YBCS) are supplemental tools used in patient teaching. However, the readability of the text coupled with how well YBCS understand or act upon the material are rarely explored. The purpose of this study was to assess the readability, understandability, and actionability of commonly distributed breast cancer survivorship print materials. We used an environmental scan approach to obtain a sample of breast cancer survivorship print materials available in outpatient oncology clinics in the central region of a largely rural Southern state. The readability analyses were completed using the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K), Fry Graph Readability Formula (Fry), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Understandability and actionability were analyzed using Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printable Materials (PEMAT-P). The environmental scan resulted in a final sample of 14 materials. The mean readability of the majority of survivorship materials was "difficult," but the majority scored above the recommended 70% in both understandability and actionability. The importance of understandability and actionability may outweigh readability results in cancer education survivorship material. While reading grade level cannot be dismissed all together, we surmise that patient behavior may hinge more on other factors such as understandability and actionability. Personalized teaching accompanying print material may help YBCS comprehend key messages and promote acting upon specific tasks., (© 2021. American Association for Cancer Education.)

Purpose: The vast amount of information found on the internet, combined with its accessibility, makes it a widely utilized resource for Americans to find information pertaining to medical information. The field of radiology is no exception. In this paper, we assess the readability level of websites pertaining specifically to emergency radiology., Methods: Using Google, 23 terms were searched, and the top 10 results were recorded. Each link was evaluated for its readability level using a set of ten reputable readability scales. The search terms included the following: abdominal ultrasound, abdominal aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, appendicitis, cord compression, CT abdomen, cholecystitis, CT chest, diverticulitis, ectopic pregnancy, epidural hematoma, dural venous thrombosis, head CT, MRI brain, MR angiography, MRI spine, ovarian torsion, pancreatitis, pelvic ultrasound, pneumoperitoneum, pulmonary embolism, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and subdural hematoma. Any content that was not written for patients was excluded., Results: The 230 articles that were assessed were written, on average, at a 12.1 grade level. Only 2 of the 230 articles (1%) were written at the third to seventh grade recommended reading level set forth by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA). Fifty-two percent of the 230 articles were written so as to require a minimum of a high school education (at least a 12th grade level). Additionally, 17 of the 230 articles (7.3%) were written at a level that exceeded an undergraduate education (at least a 16th grade level)., Conclusions: The majority of websites with emergency radiology-related patient education materials are not adhering to the NIH and AMA's recommended reading levels, and it is likely that the average reader is not benefiting fully from these information outlets. With the link between health literacy and poor health outcomes, it is important to address the online content in this area of radiology, allowing for patient to more fully benefit from their online searches.

Aims: The internet creates opportunities for Americans to access medical information about imaging tests and modalities to guide them in their medical decision-making. Owing to health literacy variations in the general population, the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend patient education resources to be written between the third and seventh grade levels. Our purpose is to quantitatively assess the readability levels of online radiology educational materials, written for the public, in 20 major university hospitals., Materials and Methods: In September and October 2016, we identified 20 major university hospitals with radiology residency-affiliated hospital systems. On each hospital׳s website, we downloaded all radiology-related articles written for patient use. A total of 375 articles were analyzed for readability level using 9 quantitative readability scales that are well validated in the medical literature., Results: The 375 articles from 20 hospital systems were collectively written at an 11.4 ± 3.0 grade level (range: 8.4-17.1). Only 11 (2.9%) articles were written at the recommended third to seventh grade levels. Overall, 126 (33.6%) were written above a full high-school reading level. University of Washington Medical Center׳s articles were the most readable with a reading level corresponding to 7.9 ± 0.9., Conclusions: The vast majority of websites at major academic hospitals with radiology residencies designed to provide patients with information about imaging were written above the nationally recommended health literacy guidelines to meet the needs of the average American. This may limit the benefit that patients can derive from these educational materials., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Google search engine is a resource commonly used by patients to access health-related patient education information. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend that patient education resources be written at a level between the third and seventh grade reading levels. We assessed the readability levels of online palliative care patient education resources using 10 readability algorithms widely accepted in the medical literature., Methods and Materials: In October 2016, searches were conducted for 10 individual terms pertaining to palliative care and oncology using the Google search engine; the first 10 articles written for the public for each term were downloaded for a total of 100 articles. The terms included palliative care, hospice, advance directive, cancer pain management, treatment of metastatic disease, treatment of brain metastasis, treatment of bone metastasis, palliative radiation therapy, palliative chemotherapy, and end-of-life care. We determined the average reading level of the articles by readability scale and Web site domain., Results: Nine readability assessments with scores equivalent to academic grade level found that the 100 palliative care education articles were collectively written at a 12.1 reading level (standard deviation, 2.1; range, 7.6-17.3). Zero articles were written below a seventh grade level. Forty-nine (49%) articles were written above a high school graduate reading level. The Flesch Reading Ease scale classified the articles as "difficult" to read with a score of 45.6 of 100. The articles were collected from 62 Web site domains. Seven domains were accessed 3 or more times; among these, www.mskcc.org had the highest average reading level at a 14.5 grade level (standard deviation, 1.4; range, 13.4-16.1)., Conclusions: Most palliative care education articles readily available on Google are written above national health literacy recommendations. There is need to revise these resources to allow patients and their families to derive the most benefit from these materials., (Copyright © 2017 729. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Information for patients regarding their clinical conditions and treatment options is widely available online. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend that online patient-oriented materials be written at no higher than a seventh-grade reading level to ensure full comprehension by the average American. This study sought to determine whether online patient-oriented materials explaining common pathology procedures are written at appropriate reading levels. Ten pathology procedures that patients would likely research were queried into Google search, and plain text from the first 10 Web sites containing patient education materials for each procedure was analyzed using 10 validated readability scales. We determined mean reading levels of materials grouped by readability scale, procedure, and Web site domain, the overall average reading level of all resources, and popular Web site domains. One hundred Web sites were accessed; one was omitted for short length (<100 words). The average reading grade level of the 99 materials, none of which met national health literacy guidelines (range, 7.3-17.4), was 10.9. Twenty-nine articles (29%) required a high school education for full comprehension, and 4 (4%) required an undergraduate college education. Most frequently accessed Web site domains included medlineplus.gov, webmd.com (both accessed 7 times), and labtestsonline.org (accessed 6 times). Average reading levels of the 11 most commonly accessed Web sites ranged from 8.25 (patient.info) to 12.25 (mayoclinic.org). Readability levels of most online pathology-related patient education materials exceeded those recommended by national health literacy guidelines. These patient education materials should be revised to help patients fully understand them., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Physicians encourage patients to be informed about their health care options, but much of the online health care-related resources can be beneficial only if patients are capable of comprehending it. This study's aim was to assess the readability level of online patient education resources for radiation oncology to conclude whether they meet the general public's health literacy needs as determined by the guidelines of the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA)., Methods: Radiation oncology-related internet-based patient education materials were downloaded from 5 major professional websites (American Society for Radiation Oncology, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Brachytherapy Society, RadiologyInfo.org, and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Additional patient education documents were downloaded by searching for key radiation oncology phrases using Google. A total of 135 articles were downloaded and assessed for their readability level using 10 quantitative readability scales that are widely accepted in the medical literature., Results: When all 10 assessment tools for readability were taken into account, the 135 online patient education articles were written at an average grade level of 13.7 ± 2.0. One hundred nine of the 135 articles (80.7%) required a high school graduate's comprehension level (12th-grade level or higher). Only 1 of the 135 articles (0.74%) met the AMA and NIH recommendations for patient education resources to be written between the third-grade and seventh-grade levels., Conclusion: Radiation oncology websites have patient education material written at an educational level above the NIH and AMA recommendations; as a result, average American patients may not be able to fully understand them. Rewriting radiation oncology patient education resources would likely contribute to the patients' understanding of their health and treatment options, making each physician-patient interaction more productive and efficient., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Many Americans use smartphone-based mobile applications to acquire health information. Our study evaluated the readability of mobile application-based patient educational materials (PEMs) about five prevalent cancers in the United States. The Apple and Google mobile application marketplaces were queried for breast, colon, lung, prostate, and stomach cancer-related applications, which were subsequently screened for PEMs and assessed with 10 validated readability assessments. Twenty-one pertinent applications yielded 249 articles that were written at an 11.8 ± 2.3 grade level; only 12 (4.8%) articles were written below an eighth grade level. The majority of cancer-related PEMs were written at too difficult reading levels for American patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many Americans use smartphone-based mobile applications to acquire health information. Our study evaluated the readability of mobile application-based patient educational materials (PEMs) about five prevalent cancers in the United States. The Apple and Google mobile application marketplaces were queried for breast, colon, lung, prostate, and stomach cancer-related applications, which were subsequently screened for PEMs and assessed with 10 validated readability assessments. Twenty-one pertinent applications yielded 249 articles that were written at an 11.8 ± 2.3 grade level; only 12 (4.8%) articles were written below an eighth grade level. The majority of cancer-related PEMs were written at too difficult reading levels for American patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient education materials (PEMs) empower patients to have an understanding of their health and treatment options. PEMs that currently exist in Radiation Oncology are available primarily as text heavy resources, or multiple-click web-based Internet resources, exceeding the national readability recommendation of a 6th grade reading level. A health literacy level appropriate PEM that simplifies the complexity of a cancer diagnosis and treatment options may be a reasonable option to facilitate patient-provider communication in Oncology. We are developing a multidisciplinary, health literacy appropriate thoracic oncology PEM at Rush University Medical Center (RUMC) in Chicago, IL, which serves a diverse patient population with varying health literacy levels. This new PEM, part of an ongoing study, aims to address the knowledge translation gap. The primary outcome is to assess the mean difference in patient satisfaction between control and study groups. The secondary outcome is to assess an interaction effect between health literacy and the overall effect of the PEM on patient satisfaction. This prospective randomized control trial with IRB approval is ongoing. The PEM was developed collaboration with media designers and the RUMC Patient Education Committee. Readability of the PEM was assessed with ten common readability assessment scales, represented through a mean score. All English or Spanish speaking adults scheduled for a new patient consult during Comprehensive Lung Clinic will be included. The control group will receive the standard of care (physician encounter without the PEM), while the intervention group will receive standard of care and the PEM. All patients will complete an anonymized validated survey that measures health literacy levels, sociodemographic factors, and satisfaction of the encounter. A cumulative anonymized health-care provider survey will gather descriptive data about health-care providers' experiences using the PEM. Descriptive statistics will characterize the control and study group. Patient satisfaction will be measured on a 5-point scale. A two-sample t-test with a one-sided alternative will measure the difference of mean score of patient satisfaction between the control and study group. We will apply interaction tests to determine the differential impact of health literacy on the correlation of the PEM and patient satisfaction. Multiple linear regression modeling will be done to determine the correlation of the PEM and patient satisfaction after adjusting for other socio-demographic variables. If received well, we will explore expanding this study to other treatment sites, with the overall goal of improving health literacy appropriate PEMs in Radiation Oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mobile health applications may improve patient education and self-care for a complex condition such as atrial fibrillation (AF). Little is known about the accessibility of mobile health applications ("apps") and their readability. We evaluated the readability and quality of available apps for AF. We searched the Apple and Google Play app stores with the terms "atrial fibrillation" and "afib." We downloaded English-language apps (up to n = 100 for each term) and categorized them by name, App store, cost, content, uploading agency (heath care associated [HCA] versus non-HCA), target audience (health care professional [HCP] versus non-HCP), scientific validity (i.e., citation of peer-reviewed or validated medical information), and user ratings. We analyzed the text of apps intended for a non-HCP target audience for readability with 10 established measures. Of the 206 downloaded apps, 50.5% were excluded as unrelated to AF, inaccessible, or non-English language. The majority of apps contained information about AF (63.2% Apple, 52.2% Google Play) and AF detection (52.6% Apple, 56.5% Google Play). A minority of non-HCP apps contained scientifically validated content (Apple, 15.8%; Google Play, 13.0%; P = NS). App mean readability was grade 12.1 ± 2.6. Most AF apps lacked scientific validation and were written at excessively high reading-grade levels. Our results suggest caution with mobile health apps, particularly for users with limited health literacy. There is potential opportunity for a multi-disciplinary effort by regulatory agencies, healthcare organizations, and app stores to improve relevance, scientific validity, and readability of AF apps for patients with this complex and morbid disease. • We systematically examined smartphone apps for atrial fibrillation. • In the majority of apps, we identified content that lacked scientific validation. • Materials for patient education were written at very high reading-grade levels. • We suggest professional society guidelines for app quality and readability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]