Search

Introduction: Patients use the internet to search for health-related information. We sought to characterize the information that patients find when searching for dermatologists on Google., Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was utilized to identify all Medicare-participating dermatologists practicing in Pennsylvania (PA). A custom Google-based search engine was used to search each dermatologist. Up to the top 10 results for each physician were then sorted into: (1) physician, hospital, or healthcare system, (2) third-party, (3) social media, (4) academic journal articles, or (5) other., Results: Within the CMS, 519 health care providers (53.9% male, 46.1% female) self-identified as dermatologists practicing in PA. At least one search result was obtained for each physician (4,963 total search results). About 30.6% (1,519) search results were hospital, health system, or physician-controlled websites, and 26.6% (1,318) were third-party websites (1,318; 26.6%). Social media websites accounted for 601 (12.1%) hits whereas peer-reviewed academic journal websites generated 135 (2.7%) results. One-way chi-square analysis showed domains were not randomly distributed across the five categories (P<0.0001)., Conclusion: Dermatologists should be better aware of their digital presence and the strategies to better control their online identity.

Background: Patients are increasingly turning to online resources to inquire about individual physicians and to gather health information. However, little research exists studying the online presence of neurosurgeons across the country. This study aimed to characterize these online profiles and assess the scope of neurosurgeons' digital identities., Methods: Medicare-participating neurologic surgeons from the United States and Puerto Rico were identified using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File. Each physician was characterized by his or her medical education, graduation year, city of practice, gender, and affiliation with an academic institution. Using a Google-based custom search tool, the top 10 search results for each physician were extracted and categorized as 1 of the following: 1) physician, hospital, or healthcare system controlled, 2) third-party or government controlled, 3) social media-based, 4) primary journal article, or 5) other., Results: Among the physicians within the CMS database, 4751 self-identified as being neurosurgeons, yielding a total of 45,875 uniform resource locator search results pertinent to these physicians. Of the 4751 neurosurgeons, 2317 (48.8%) and 2434 (51.2%) were classified as academic and nonacademic neurosurgeons, respectively. At least 1 search result was obtained for every physician. Hospital, healthcare system, or physician-controlled websites (18,206; 39.7%) and third-party websites (17,122; 37.3%) were the 2 most commonly observed domain types. Websites belonging to social media platforms accounted for 4843 (10.6%) search results, and websites belonging to peer-reviewed academic journals accounted for 1888 (4.1%) search results. The frequency with which a third-party domain appeared as the first search result was higher for nonacademic neurosurgeons than for academic neurosurgeons., Conclusions: In general, neurosurgeons lacked a controllable online presence within their first page of Google Search results. Third-party physician rating websites constituted about half of the search results, and a relative lack of social media websites was apparent. Still, numerous opportunities exist for neurosurgeons to address this disparity., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: When prospective radiology residents decide where to apply to residency, many will use the Internet as a resource to garner information. Therefore, it is important for residency programs to produce and maintain an informative and comprehensive website. Here, we review 179 radiology residency program websites for 19 criteria including various aspects related to the residency application process, benefits, didactics, research, clinical training, and faculty leadership., Methods: We evaluated 179 radiology residency program websites for the inclusion of 19 different criteria. Criteria for information not available directly on the website and links with no information were considered not present., Results: Only 12 of the 179 (6.7%) program websites had at least 80% of the 19 criteria. In addition, 41 programs (23%) had less than 50% of the criteria listed on their websites. Websites ranged from having 16% of the criteria to as much as 95%., Conclusion: Although previous studies have shown that prospective radiology resident applicants are influenced by intangibles like current resident satisfaction and academic reputation, they have also shown that applicants are influenced by the educational curriculum, clinical training, program resources, research opportunities, and quality of faculty. Therefore, it is imperative to provide online resources for prospective candidates in an attempt for residency programs to remain competitive in recruiting high-quality US medical student graduates. These findings suggest there is room for improving the comprehensiveness of information provided on radiology residency program websites., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Introduction: Google is the most popular search engine in the United States, and patients are increasingly relying on online webpages to seek information about individual physicians. This study aims to characterize what patients find when they search for radiation oncologists online., Methods and Materials: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Comparable Downloadable File was used to identify all Medicare-participating radiation oncologists in the United States and Puerto Rico. Each radiation oncologist was characterized by medical school education, year of graduation, city of practice, gender, and affiliation with an academic institution. Using a custom Google-based search engine, up to the top 10 search results for each physician were extracted and categorized as relating to: (1) physician, hospital, or health care system; (2) third-party; (3) social media; (4) academic journal articles; or (5) other., Results: Among all health care providers in the United States within CMS, 4443 self-identified as being radiation oncologists and yielded 40,764 search results. Of those, 1161 (26.1%) and 3282 (73.9%) were classified as academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively. At least 1 search result was obtained for 4398 physicians (99.0%). Physician, hospital, and health care-controlled websites (16,006; 39.3%) and third-party websites (10,494; 25.7%) were the 2 most often observed domain types. Social media platforms accounted for 2729 (6.7%) hits, and peer-reviewed academic journal websites accounted for 1397 (3.4%) results. About 6.8% and 6.7% of the top 10 links were social media websites for academic and nonacademic radiation oncologists, respectively., Conclusions: Most radiation oncologists lack self-controlled online content when patients search within the first page of Google search results. With the strong presence of third-party websites and lack of social media, opportunities exist for radiation oncologists to increase their online presence to improve patient-provider communication and better the image of the overall field. We discuss strategies to improve online visibility., (Copyright © 2017 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.)

Background and Aims: The lay public frequently access and rely on online information as a source of their medical knowledge. Many medical societies are unaware of national patient education material guidelines and subsequently fail to meet them. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials within the medical field of gastroenterology., Methods: Two hundred fourteen articles pertaining to patient education materials were evaluated with ten well-established readability scales. The articles were available on the websites for the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), and the NIH section National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc analysis were conducted to determine any differences in level of readability between websites., Results: The 214 articles were written at an 11.8 ± 2.1 grade level with a range of 8.0 to 16.0 grade level. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD post hoc analysis determined the ACG was written at a significantly (p < 0.05) more difficult level when compared to the AGA, the BSG, and the NIDDK websites. No differences were noted when comparing the ASGE website., Conclusions: None of the patient education materials were written at a level that met national guidelines. If the materials are redrafted, the general American public will likely have a greater understanding of the gastroenterology content.

Introduction: The relative ease of Internet access and its seemingly endless amount of information creates opportunities for Americans to research medical diseases, diagnoses, and treatment plans. Our objective is quantitative evaluation of the readability level of patient education websites, written for the lay public, pertaining to common radiologic diagnostic test, and radiologic diagnoses specific to abdominal imaging., Methods: In October 2015, 10 search terms were entered in the Google search engine, and the top 10 links for each term were collected and independently examined for their readability level using 10 well-validated quantitative readability scales. Search terms included CT abdomen, MRI abdomen, MRI enterography, ultrasound abdomen, X-ray abdomen, cholecystitis, diverticulitis, hepatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and pancreatitis. Websites not written exclusively for patients were excluded from the analysis., Results: As a group, the 100 articles were assessed at an 11.7 grade level. Only 2% (2/100) were written at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and American Medical Association (AMA) suggested 3rd to 7th grade level to meet the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. In fact, 49% were written at a level that required a high school education or higher (greater than 12th grade)., Conclusions: With websites like radiologyinfo.org, generating over a million visitors a month, it is that clear there is a public interest in learning about radiology. However, given the discordance between the level of readability of the majority of the Internet articles and the NIH and AMA guidelines noted in this study on abdominal imaging readability, it is likely that many readers do not fully benefit from these resources on abdominal imaging.

Background: Increased availability of medical information on the Internet empowers patients to look up answers to questions about their medical conditions. However, the quality of medical information available on the Internet is highly variable. Various tools for the assessment of online medical information have been developed and used to assess the quality and accuracy of medical web sites. In this study we used the LIDA tool (Minervation) to assess the quality of pediatric patient information on the AAOS (American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons) and POSNA (Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America) web sites., Methods: The accessibility, usability, and reliability of online medical information in the "Children" section of the AAOS web site and on the POSNA web site were assessed with use of the LIDA tool. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) values were also calculated to assess the readability of the pediatric education material., Results: Patient education materials on each web site scored in the moderate range in assessments of accessibility, usability, and reliability. FK and FRE values indicated that the readability of each web site remained at a somewhat higher (more difficult) level than the recommended benchmark., Conclusions: The quality and readability of online information for children on the AAOS and POSNA web sites are acceptable but can be improved further., Clinical Relevance: The quality of online pediatric orthopaedic patient education materials may affect communication with patients and their caregivers, and further investigation and modification of quality are needed., (Copyright © 2014 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

The internet has become a major contributor to health literacy promotion. The average American reads at 7th-8th grade level and it is recommended to write patient education materials at or below 6th grade reading level. We tried to assess the level of literacy required to read and understand online patient education materials (OPEM) for neurological diseases from various internet resources. We then compared those to an assumed reference OPEM source, namely the patient education brochures from the American Academy of Neurology (AAN), the world's largest professional association of neurologists. Disease specific patient education brochures were downloaded from the AAN website. OPEM for these diseases were also accessed from other common online sources determined using a predefined criterion. All OPEM were converted to Microsoft Word (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA, USA) and their reading level was analyzed using Readability Studio Professional Edition version 2012.1 (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH, USA). Descriptive analysis and analysis of variance were used to compare reading levels of OPEM from different resources. Medline Plus, Mayo clinic and Wikipedia qualified for OPEM analysis. All OPEM from these resources, including the AAN, were written above the recommended 6th grade reading level. They were also found to be "fairly difficult", "difficult" or "confusing" on the Flesch Reading Ease scale. AAN OPEM on average needed lower reading level, with Wikipedia OPEM being significantly (p<0.01) more difficult to read compared to the other three resources. OPEM on neurological diseases are being written at a level of reading complexity higher than the average American and the recommended reading levels. This may be undermining the utility of these resources., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients frequently turn to the Internet when seeking answers to healthcare related inquiries including questions about the effects of radiation when undergoing radiologic studies. We investigate the readability of online patient education materials concerning radiation safety from multiple Internet resources., Methods: Patient education material regarding radiation safety was downloaded from 8 different websites encompassing: (1) the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (2) the Environmental Protection Agency, (3) the European Society of Radiology, (4) the Food and Drug Administration, (5) the Mayo Clinic, (6) MedlinePlus, (7) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and (8) the Society of Pediatric Radiology. From these 8 resources, a total of 45 articles were analyzed for their level of readability using 10 different readability scales., Results: The 45 articles had a level of readability ranging from 9.4 to the 17.2 grade level. Only 3/45 (6.7%) were written below the 10th grade level. No statistical difference was seen between the readability level of the 8 different websites., Conclusions: All 45 articles from all 8 websites failed to meet the recommendations set forth by the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association that patient education resources be written between the 3rd and 7th grade level. Rewriting the patient education resources on radiation safety from each of these 8 websites would help many consumers of healthcare information adequately comprehend such material., (Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)

Object: The Internet has become a widespread source for disseminating health information to large numbers of people. Such is the case for spine surgery as well. Given the complexity of spinal surgeries, an important point to consider is whether these resources are easily read and understood by most Americans. The average national reading grade level has been estimated to be at about the 7th grade. In the present study the authors strove to assess the readability of open spine surgery resources and minimally invasive spine surgery resources to offer suggestions to help improve the readability of patient resources., Methods: Online patient education resources were downloaded in 2013 from 50 resources representing either traditional open back surgery or minimally invasive spine surgery. Each resource was assessed using 10 scales from Readability Studio Professional Edition version 2012.1., Results: Patient education resources representing traditional open back surgery or minimally invasive spine surgery were all found to be written at a level well above the recommended 6th grade level. In general, minimally invasive spine surgery materials were written at a higher grade level., Conclusions: The readability of patient education resources from spine surgery websites exceeds the average reading ability of an American adult. Revisions may be warranted to increase quality and patient comprehension of these resources to effectively reach a greater patient population.

Purpose: The Internet is frequently accessed by patients as a resource for medical knowledge. However, the provided material is typically written at a level well above the recommended 7th grade level. A clear understanding of the capabilities, limitations, risks, and benefits of interventional radiology by patients, both current and prospective, is hindered when the textual information offered to the public is pitched at a level of sophistication too high for general comprehension., Methods: In January 2013, all 25 patient education resources from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe (CIRSE) Web site ( http://www.cirse.org ) and all 31 resources from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Web site ( http://www.sirweb.org ) were analyzed for their specific level of readability using ten quantitative scales: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning fog index, New Fog Count, Coleman-Liau index, FORCAST formula, Fry graph, Raygor Readability Estimate, and New Dale-Chall., Results: Collectively, the patient education resources on the CIRSE Web site are written at the 12.3 grade level, while the resources on the SIR Web site are written at the 14.5 grade level., Conclusion: Educational health care materials available on both the CIRSE and the SIR Web sites are presented in language in the aggregate that could be too difficult for many lay people to fully understand. Given the complex nature of vascular and interventional radiology, it may be advantageous to rewrite these educational resources at a lower reading level to increase comprehension.

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, Coleman-Liau 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.

Objectives/hypothesis: Patients are increasingly using the Internet as a source of information on medical conditions. Because the average American adult reads at a 7th- to 8th-grade level, the National Institutes of Health recommend that patient education material be written between a 4th- and 6th-grade level. In this study, we assess and compare the readability of patient education materials on major surgical subspecialty Web sites relative to otolaryngology., Study Design: Descriptive and correlational design., Methods: Patient education materials from 14 major surgical subspecialty Web sites (American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons, American Association of Endocrine Surgeons, American Society of General Surgeons, American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, American Pediatric Surgical Association, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Society for Thoracic Surgeons, and American Urological Association) were downloaded and assessed for their level of readability using 10 widely accepted readability scales., Results: The readability level of patient education material from all surgical subspecialties was uniformly too high. Average readability levels across all subspecialties ranged from the 10th- to 15th-grade level., Conclusions: Otolaryngology and other surgical subspecialties Web sites have patient education material written at an education level that the average American may not be able to understand. To reach a broader population of patients, it might be necessary to rewrite patient education material at a more appropriate level., Level of Evidence: N/A., (© 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.)

Purpose: The National Institutes of Health, American Medical Association, and United States Department of Health and Human Services recommend that patient education materials be written at a fourth to sixth grade reading level to facilitate comprehension. We examined and compared the readability and difficulty of online patient education materials from the American Urological Association and academic urology departments in the Northeastern United States., Materials and Methods: We assessed the online patient education materials for difficulty level with 10 commonly used readability assessment tools, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook, New Dale-Chall Test, Coleman-Liau index, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, FORCAST test and Fry score., Results: Most patient education materials on the websites of these programs were written at or above the eleventh grade reading level., Conclusions: Urological online patient education materials are written above the recommended reading level. They may need to be simplified to facilitate better patient understanding of urological topics., (Copyright © 2013 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Given its practicality, the internet is a primary resource for patients afflicted with diseases like peripheral neuropathy. Therefore, it is important that the readily available online resources on peripheral neuropathy are tailored to the general public, particularly concerning readability. Patient education resources were downloaded from the US National Library of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Neuropathy.org, GBS/CIDP Foundation International, Hereditary Neuropathy Foundation, Charcot-Marie-Tooth Association, Foundation for Peripheral Neuropathy, and Neuropathy Action Foundation websites. All patient education material related to peripheral neuropathy was evaluated for its level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The FRE scores averaged 43.4 with only the US National Library of Medicine scoring above 60 (76.5). The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores averaged 11.0. All scores were above a seventh-grade level except the US National Library of Medicine, which had a score of a fifth-grade reading level. Most Americans may not fully benefit from patient education resources concerning peripheral neuropathy education on many of the websites. Only the US National Library of Medicine, which is written at a fifth-grade level, is likely to benefit the average American., (© 2013 Peripheral Nerve Society.)

Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare the readability of online patient education materials among academic otolaryngology departments in the mid-Atlantic region, with the purpose of determining whether these commonly used online resources were written at a level readily understood by the average American., Methods: A readability analysis of online patient education materials was performed using several commonly used readability assessments including the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook, the New Dale-Chall Test, the Coleman-Liau Index, the New Fog Count, the Raygor Readability Estimate, the FORCAST test, and the Fry Graph., Results: Most patient education materials from these programs were written at or above an 11th grade reading level, considerably above National Institutes of Health guidelines for recommended difficulty., Conclusions: Patient educational materials from academic otolaryngology Web sites are written at too difficult a reading level for a significant portion of patients and can be simplified., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Various otolaryngology associations provide Internet-based patient education material (IPEM) to the general public. However, this information may be written above the fourth- to sixth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH). The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of otolaryngology-related IPEMs on various otolaryngology association websites and to determine whether they are above the recommended reading level for patient education materials., Study Design and Setting: Analysis of patient education materials from 9 major otolaryngology association websites., Methods: The readability of 262 otolaryngology-related IPEMs was assessed with 8 numerical and 2 graphical readability tools. Averages were evaluated against national recommendations and between each source using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) analysis. Mean readability scores for each otolaryngology association website were compared., Results: Mean website readability scores using Flesch Reading Ease test, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG grading, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, FORCAST Formula, New Fog Count Test, Raygor Readability Estimate, and the Fry Readability Graph ranged from 20.0 to 57.8, 9.7 to 17.1, 10.7 to 15.9, 11.6 to 18.2, 10.9 to 15.0, 8.6 to 16.0, 10.4 to 12.1, 8.5 to 11.8, 10.5 to 17.0, and 10.0 to 17.0, respectively. ANOVA results indicate a significant difference (P < .05) between the websites for each individual assessment., Conclusion: The IPEMs found on all otolaryngology association websites exceed the recommended fourth- to sixth-grade reading level.

Objective: Americans are increasingly turning to the Internet as a source of health care information. These online resources should be written at a level readily understood by the average American. This study evaluates the readability of online patient education information available from the American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck Surgery Foundation (AAO-HNSF) professional Web site using 7 different assessment tools that analyze the materials for reading ease and grade level of its target audience., Study Design and Setting: Analysis of Internet-based patient education material from the AAO-HNSF Web site., Methods: Online patient education material from the AAO-HNSF was downloaded in January 2012 and assessed for level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG grading, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning-Fog Index, Raygor Readability Estimate graph, and Fry Readability graph. The text from each subsection was pasted as plain text into Microsoft Word document, and each subsection was subjected to readability analysis using the software package Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2012.1., Results: All health care education material assessed is written between an 11th grade and graduate reading level and is considered "difficult to read" by the assessment scales., Conclusions: Online patient education materials on the AAO-HNSF Web site are written above the recommended 6th grade level and may need to be revised to make them more easily understood by a broader audience.

The internet is increasingly used to access patient education materials. The average American reading level has been found to be that of a 7th- to 8th-grade student, prompting the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American Medical Association (AMA) to advise that patient education materials be written between the 4th- to 6th-grade reading level. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reading level of current patient education materials for the most common musculoskeletal oncological tumors. A Google search was performed with all location filters off to account for geographic variability for patient education materials related to 28 orthopedic primary or secondary tumors. All patient education articles from the first 10 website hits for each tumor type were analyzed. Patient education materials from these websites were evaluated using 8 validated readability scales. Patient resources were found to be written at an average grade level nearly double the NIH and AMA recommendation. Patient education materials for soft tissue chondromas were written at the highest level (14.8±1.9), whereas education materials for chordomas (10.1±1.0) most closely approached national recommendations, despite still being written at a readability level nearly 4 grade levels higher than has been recommended. The Flesch Reading Ease assessment provided a mean score of 46.5±7.7, corresponding with a "difficult to read" result. Current patient education materials regarding oncological musculoskeletal-related patient education materials are written significantly above the recommended reading level. Further modification of these resources is warranted to ensure adequate comprehension and informed decision making in the clinical setting. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(1):38-42.]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Americans have increasingly utilized the internet as a first-line resource for a variety of information, including healthcare-oriented materials. Therefore, these online resources should be written at a level the average American can understand. Patient education resources specifically written for and available to the public were downloaded from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website and assessed for their level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Grading, Coleman-Liau Index, and Gunning-Fog Index. A total of 71 subsections from different neurosurgical specialties were reviewed, including Cerebrovascular, Spine and Peripheral Nerves, Neurotrauma and Critical Care, Pain, Pediatric, Stereotactic and Functional, and Tumor material. All neurosurgical subspecialty education material provided on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website was uniformly written at a level that was too high, as assessed by all modalities. In order to reach a larger patient population, patient education materials on the American Association of Neurological Surgeons website should be revised with the goal of simplifying readability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives/Hypothesis: Deficient health literacy remains a widespread public issue. As such, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that all patient resources should be written around a sixth-grade level. The authors evaluate healthcare-oriented resources specified for patient use on the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) Web site in order to identify potential areas of improvement and highlight those sections that may serve as paradigms for future revisions. Study Design: Descriptive and correlational design. Methods: Seventeen healthcare-oriented resources specifically for patients were downloaded in February 2012 from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Web site. Readability assessments of each article were performed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2012.1. These tests included the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG Grading, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning-Fog Index, the New Fog Count, the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, FORCAST formula, Raygor Readability Estimate, and the Fry Graph. Results: Patient health education material found on the AAFPRS Web site has been found to be written at an average grade level of 12th grade using 10 different readability scales. Conclusions: Modifications of the patient education section of the AAFPRS Web site can increase the readability of the literature, and allow greater comprehension among a wider audience. Laryngoscope, 2013 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With ever growing popularity and widespread adoption of mobile social applications, the traffic handled by mobile networks and the Internet has grown significantly. While researchers have been making advances in the study of social networks and independently in the area of next generation wireless networks, very little attention has been given to the interplay between the two, and their impact on each other and society. The challenge of the interplay between social networks and mobile networks is compounded by the fact that advances in smart handheld devices and those in wireless technologies have paved the way for increasing bandwidth catering to very high data rates. Sophisticated social applications such as Second Life, and those involving 3D and real-time data can take advantage of such advances. It is entirely likely that such advances in turn could lead to novel social applications not yet thought of. For example, new social applications could emerge in the area of social health or social games with new forms of massively multi-player, multimedia, 3D, and role playing games. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The extensive amount of medical literature available on the Internet is frequently accessed by patients. To effectively contribute to healthcare decision-making, these online resources should be worded at a level that is readable by any patient seeking information. The American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health recommend the readability of patient information material should be between a 4th to 6th grade level. In this study, we evaluate the readability of online patient education information available from the American Rhinologic Society (ARS) website using 9 different assessment tools that analyze the materials for reading ease and grade level of the target audience. Methods Online patient education material from the ARS was downloaded in February 2012 and assessed for level of readability using the Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grading, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning-Fog Index, FORCAST formula, Raygor Readability Estimate, the Fry Graph, and the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Each article was pasted as plain text into a Microsoft® Word® document and each subsection was analyzed using the software package Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2012.1. Results All healthcare education materials assessed were written between a 9th grade and graduate reading level and were considered 'difficult' to read by the assessment scales. Conclusion Online patient education materials on the ARS website are written above the recommended 6th grade level and may require revision to make them easily understood by a broader audience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]