Online Patient Education Materials Research Articles

How readable the online patient education materials of intensive and critical care societies: Assessment of the readability

How readable the online patient education materials of intensive and critical care societies: Assessment of the readability

Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia.

Guidelines recommend that health-related information for patients should be written at or below the sixth-grade level. We sought to evaluate the readability level and quality of online patient education materials regarding epidural and spinal anesthesia. We evaluated webpages with content written specifically regarding either spinal or epidural anesthesia, identified using 11 relevant search terms, with seven commonly used readability formulas: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed the quality of the reading materials using the Brief DISCERN tool. We analyzed 261 webpages. The mean (standard deviation) readability scores were: FKGL = 8.8 (1.9), GFI = 11.2 (2.2), CLI = 10.3 (1.9), ARI = 8.1 (2.2), SMOG = 11.6 (1.6), FRE = 55.7 (10.8), and NDC = 5.4 (1.0). The mean grade level was higher than the recommended sixth-grade level when calculated with six of the seven readability formulas. The average Brief DISCERN score was 16.0. Readability levels of online patient education materials pertaining to epidural and spinal anesthesia are higher than recommended. When we evaluated the quality of the information using a validated tool, the materials were found to be just below the threshold of what is considered good quality. Authors of educational materials should provide not only readable but also good-quality information to enhance patient understanding.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve Readability of Otolaryngology Patient Education Materials.

The recommended readability of health education materials is at the sixth-grade level. Artificial intelligence (AI) large language models such as the newly released ChatGPT4 might facilitate the conversion of patient-education materials at scale. We sought to ascertain whether online otolaryngology education materials meet recommended reading levels and whether ChatGPT4 could rewrite these materials to the sixth-grade level. We also wished to ensure that converted materials were accurate and retained sufficient content. Seventy-one articles from patient educational materials published online by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery were selected. Articles were entered into ChatGPT4 with the prompt "translate this text to a sixth-grade reading level." Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) were determined for each article before and after AI conversion. Each article and conversion were reviewed for factual inaccuracies, and each conversion was reviewed for content retention. The 71 articles had an initial average FKGL of 11.03 and FRES of 46.79. After conversion by ChatGPT4, the average FKGL across all articles was 5.80 and FRES was 77.27. Converted materials provided enough detail for patient education with no factual errors. We found that ChatGPT4 improved the reading accessibility of otolaryngology online patient education materials to recommended levels quickly and effectively. Physicians can determine whether their patient education materials exceed current recommended reading levels by using widely available measurement tools, and then apply AI dialogue platforms to modify materials to more accessible levels as needed. Level 5.

Readability, Content, and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials on Anesthesia and Neurotoxicity in the Pediatric Population.

Internet-based patient education materials (PEMs) are often above the recommended sixth grade reading level recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In 2016 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a warning statement against use of general anesthetic drugs in children and pregnant women due to concerns about neurotoxicity. The aim of this study is to evaluate readability, content, and quality of Internet-based PEMs on anesthesia in the pediatric population and neurotoxicity. The websites of U.S. medical centers with pediatric anesthesiology fellowship programs were searched for PEMs pertaining to pediatric anesthesia and neurotoxicity. Readability was assessed. PEM content was evaluated using matrices specific to pediatric anesthesia and neurotoxicity. PEM quality was assessed with the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool for Print. A one-sample t-test was used to compare the readability of the PEMs to the recommended sixth grade reading level. We identified 27 PEMs pertaining to pediatric anesthesia and eight to neurotoxicity. Mean readability of all PEMs was greater than a sixth grade reading (p <0.001). While only 13% of PEMs on anesthesia for pediatric patient mentioned the FDA warning, 100% of the neurotoxicity materials did. PEMs had good understandability (83%) and poor actionability (60%). The readability, content, and quality of PEMs are poor and should be improved to help parents and guardians make informed decisions about their children's health care. · The FDA issued a warning statement against the use of general anesthetic drugs in children and pregnant women.. · Readability, content, and quality of Internet-based patient education materials on the topic of neurotoxicity are poor.. · Improving the readability, content, and quality of PEMs could aid parents in making important health care decisions..

The complexity of online patient education materials for wound care strategies: A readability analysis

BackgroundIn the United States, over 6 million people are affected by chronic wounds. Patients often rely on the Internet for treatment information; however, these educational materials typically exceed the average eighth-grade health literacy level. This study aimed to assess the readability and language accessibility of online patient education materials on wound care strategies. MethodsA search was conducted on Google for articles related to wound care strategies. The first 12 unique websites from each search strategy were selected for further analysis. Readability was assessed using 11 tests, with the mean scores calculated for each. ResultsA total of 66 articles pertaining to wound care strategies were retrieved from 43 websites. All articles had an average reading grade level of 13.5 ± 2.5 and an average reading age of 18.7 ± 2.5 years. Websites were categorized by the following sources: academic (34.9%), reagent/biologic manufacturers (27.9%), wound care (18.6%), news media organizations (14%), and other (4.7%). Flesch Reading Ease Score, graded from 0 for most difficult to 100 for least difficult, was found to be highest for academic websites (44.2, P = .01) and lowest for news media websites (24.9, P = .01). Academic websites were available in the more languages compared to all other website categories (P < .01). ConclusionOnline materials related to wound care strategies often exceed the National Institute of Health recommended eighth-grade reading level. This study emphasizes the need for healthcare providers to create more accessible educational materials to address the gap in health literacy and optimize patient care.

Google Trends–Assisted Analysis of the Readability, Accountability, and Accessibility of Online Patient Education Materials for the Treatment of AMD After FDA Approval of Pegcetacoplan

Purpose: To evaluate the readability, accountability, accessibility, and source of online patient education materials for treatment of age-related macular degeneration AMD and to quantify public interest in “Syfovre” and “geographic atrophy” after Food and Drug Administration approval. Methods: Websites were classified into 4 categories by information source. Readability was assessed using 5 validated readability indices. Accountability was assessed using 4 benchmarks of the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA). Accessibility was evaluated using 3 established criteria. The Google Trends tool was used to evaluate temporal trends in public interest in “Syfovre” and “geographic atrophy” in the months after US Food and Drug Administration approval. Results: Of 100 websites analyzed, 22% were written below the recommended sixth-grade reading level. The mean (±SD) grade level of analyzed articles was 9.76 ± 3.35. Websites averaged 1.40 ± 1.39 (of 4) JAMA accountability metrics. The majority of articles (67%) were from private practice/independent organizations. A significant increase in the public interest in “Syfovre” and “geographic atrophy” after FDA approval was found with the Google Trends tool ( P &lt; .001). Conclusions: Patient education materials related to AMD treatment are often written at inappropriate reading levels and lack established accountability and accessibility metrics. Articles from national organizations ranked highest on accessibility metrics but were less visible on a Google search, suggesting the need for visibility-enhancing measures. Patient education materials related to “Syfovre” had the highest average reading level and low accountability, suggesting the need to modify resources to best address the needs of an increasingly curious public.

Navigating Scar Care: An Evaluation of Scar Treatment Patient Education Materials.

While patient education materials (PEMs) across various specialties have been reported as being too difficult to read, the quality and understandability of PEMs related to scar management have not been assessed. In this study, we report the breadth of scar management interventions and readability of online PEMs authored by academic societies and university hospitals. Websites of academic medical societies and university hospitals with scar revision PEMs were assessed for relevance. PEM readability was assessed via Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fox Index scores. Understandability and actionability were evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A total of 26 scar revision PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly mentioned scar management interventions were scar revision surgery (73%) and laser scar revision (70%), with minimal emphasis on non-invasive methods like scar massage or sun protection. Readability analysis yielded a mean Flesch reading level of 8.8. Overall PEMAT understandability of online scar treatment PEMs was moderate, with a median of 76.0% (IQR 71.5 - 80.5%). PEMs from all specialties and institution types were lacking in actionability, with median actionability of 40.8% (IQR 38.1-60.0%). Online scar revision PEMs included a wide breadth of scar management interventions, however the least costly interventions of sun protection and scar massage were not commonly included. PEMs for scar management could be improved by simplifying language, including visual aids, and including checklists or specific steps patients can take to take action on scar management interventions.

Readability and Quality of Online Patient Education Materials Concerning Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Objective This study aimed to assess the quality of online patient educational materials regarding posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Methods We performed a search of the top-50 results on Google® (terms: "posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,""PCL reconstruction,""posterior cruciate ligament surgery," and "PCL surgery") and subsequently filtered to rule out duplicated/inaccessible websites or those containing only videos (67 websites included). Readability was assessed using six formulas: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKG), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI); quality was assessed using the JAMA benchmark criteria and recording the presence of the HONcode seal. Results The mean FRE was 49.3 (SD 11.2) and the mean FKG level was 8.09. These results were confirmed by the other readability formulae (average: GF 8.9; SMOG Index 7.3; CLI 14.7; ARI 6.5). A HONcode seal was available for 7.4 % of websites. The average JAMA score was 1.3. Conclusion The reading level of online patient materials concerning PCL reconstruction is too high for the average reader, requiring high comprehension skills. Practice implications Online medical information has been shown to influence patient healthcare decision processes. Patient-oriented educational materials should be clear and easy to understand.

Readability of online educational materials for brainstem implants: An assessment

Aim: This study aimed to assess the readability of online patient education materials related to brainstem implants and to determine how comprehensible these materials are for patients and their families.&#x0D; Methods: Using Google Search with the term "auditory brainstem implant", the first 50 websites were identified and categorized into two: Hospital and General Information Websites. Non-educational texts were removed from each site, and readability was assessed using six established readability tests. The readability scores for the texts were automatically calculated using a dedicated online tool.&#x0D; Results: Overall, all websites were found to have a high level of readability, surpassing the recommended 6th-grade reading level suggested by the American Medical Association. No significant difference was found between the readability scores of hospitals and general information websites.&#x0D; Conclusion: The online patient education materials concerning brainstem implants typically exceed the recommended reading levels, which may hinder patients and their families from fully understanding these materials. There's a need for health professionals and institutions to strike a balance between scientific accuracy and readability to cater to a broader audience and make their materials more accessible.

Evaluating online patient education materials for liver cirrhosis.

Liver cirrhosis affects 4.5 million adults in the United States (US). As more patients educate themselves online, we evaluated the accessibility, quality, understandability, accuracy, readability, and comprehensiveness (AQUA-RC) of online patient education materials for cirrhosis. Cross-sectional analysis using Google® and YouTube® on a cleared internet browser from 12 cities across the US. The authors independently reviewed the top 25 search results from each platform using search terms "liver cirrhosis" and "cirrhosis". Accessibility was evaluated from twelve cities in six regions across the US. We evaluated resource quality using the DISCERN score, understandability using the PEMAT score, readability using the Flesch-Kinkaid score, and accuracy/comprehensiveness using a list of author-generated criteria. AQUA-RC was compared between 1) academic websites (AW) vs. non-academic websites (NAW), and 2) websites vs. YouTube® videos. 28 websites and 25 videos were included. Accessibility was equal across all regions. Websites had higher average quality scores than videos, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.84). Websites were more understandable than videos (p < 0.00001). Both websites and videos were 100% accurate. Readability for websites was higher than recommended standards. Websites were more comprehensive than videos (p = 0.02). Online patient education materials for cirrhosis in the US are equally accessible, but readability and understandability are too complex. Websites are of greater quality, accuracy, and comprehensiveness than YouTube videos, which are often narrowly focused and targeted at the medical community rather than patients. Further efforts should be made to improve online patient education and expand content across platforms.

A health literacy analysis of online patient-directed educational materials about mycobacterium avium complex

IntroductionMycobacterium avium complex (MAC) is a complex lung infection requiring multi-disciplinary approach and management. Due to limited clinician-patient interactions, clinicians may refer patients to online resources to learn about the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of MAC. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends educational materials be written at a sixth-grade reading level and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends that patient education materials be written at an eighth-grade reading level; however, several evaluations found these materials inaccessible due to high literacy levels. To date, there has never been a health literacy assessment of MAC patient education materials. The study aims to assess the health literacy of online patient education materials about MAC. MethodsThe patient education materials were evaluated for readability, actionability, understandability and clarity. Readability was assessed through the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Scale (FkGL), SMOG Index, Coleman Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Actionability and understandability was evaluated using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Clear Communication Index (CCI) was used to assess clarity. ResultsTen patient education resources were evaluated: CDC, Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, JAMA, American Thoracic Society (ATS), National Jewish Health, UpToDate, CHEST, WebMD, and Medline. The mean readability scores were as follows: FkGL (9.76), SMOG index (9.82), CLI (13.54), GFI (11.66), ARI (9.15). Four patient education materials were written at a sixth-grade reading level and eight patient education materials were written at an eighth-grade reading level. The majority of the materials received a passing score for understandability but failed to achieve a passing score for actionability. Cleveland Clinic, JAMA, and ATS all received a passing clarity score, indicating that they are easy to read. No patient education materials were available on UpToDate. ConclusionMost patient education materials scored poorly for actionability and clarity while scoring highly for readability and understandability. This study should serve as a guide for clinicians interested in offering online education materials to their patients. Increasing access to readable MAC educational materials should be a priority for those working at the intersection of public health, clinical care, and communications.

Readability of cerebrovascular diseases online educational material from major cerebrovascular organizations

IntroductionThe internet is an essential resource for patients and their loved ones to understand their medical conditions, and professional medical organizations have taken great strides to develop educational material targeting...

Assessment of the Quality, Accountability, and Readability of Online Patient Education Materials for Optic Neuritis

ABSTRACT Most cases of optic neuritis (ON) occur in women and in patients between the ages of 15 and 45 years, which represents a key demographic of individuals who seek health information using the internet. As clinical providers strive to ensure patients have accessible information to understand their condition, assessing the standard of online resources is essential. To assess the quality, content, accountability, and readability of online information for optic neuritis. This cross-sectional study analyzed 11 freely available medical sites with information on optic neuritis and used PubMed as a gold standard for comparison. Twelve questions were composed to include the information most relevant to patients, and each website was independently examined by four neuro-ophthalmologists. Readability was analyzed using an online readability tool. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, four criteria designed to assess the quality of health information further were used to evaluate the accountability of each website. Freely available online information. On average, websites scored 27.98 (SD ± 9.93, 95% CI 24.96–31.00) of 48 potential points (58.3%) for the twelve questions. There were significant differences in the comprehensiveness and accuracy of content across websites (p < .001). The mean reading grade level of websites was 11.90 (SD ± 2.52, 95% CI 8.83–15.25). Zero websites achieved all four JAMA benchmarks. Interobserver reliability was robust between three of four neuro-ophthalmologist (NO) reviewers (ρ = 0.77 between NO3 and NO2, ρ = 0.91 between NO3 and NO1, ρ = 0.74 between NO2 and NO1; all p < .05). The quality of freely available online information detailing optic neuritis varies by source, with significant room for improvement. The material presented is difficult to interpret and exceeds the recommended reading level for health information. Most websites reviewed did not provide comprehensive information regarding non-therapeutic aspects of the disease. Ophthalmology organizations should be encouraged to create content that is more accessible to the general public.

Addressing Current Deficits in Patient Education Materials Through Crowdsourcing.

Patient education materials are commonly reported to be difficult to understand. We aimed to use crowdsourcing to improve patient education materials at our institution. This was a department-wide quality improvement project to increase organizational health literacy. There are 6 phases of this pilot study: (1) evaluating preexisting patient education materials, (2) evaluating online patient education materials at the society (the American Society of Plastic Surgeon) and government level (Medline Plus), (3) redesigning our patient education material and reevaluating the education material, (4) crowdsourcing to evaluate understandability of the new patient education material, (5) data analysis, and (6) incorporating crowdsourcing suggestions to the patient education material. Breast-related patient education materials are not easy to read at the institution level, the society level, and the government level. Our new implant-based breast reconstruction patient education material is easy to read as demonstrated by the crowdsourcing evaluation. More than 90% of the participants reported our material is "very easy to understand" or "easy to understand." The crowdsourcing process took 1.5 days, with 700 workers responding to the survey. The total cost was $9. After incorporating participants' feedback into the finalized material, the readability of the material is at the recommended reading level. The material also had the recommended length (between 400 and 800 words). Our study demonstrated a pathway for clinicians to efficiently obtain a large amount of feedback to improve patient education materials. Crowdsourcing is an effective tool to improve organizational health literacy.

Assessing the Readability of Online English and Spanish Language Patient Education Resources Provided by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, and American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons.

The National Institutes of Health recommends that patient education materials (PEMs) be written at the sixth grade level. However, PEMs online are still generally difficult to read. The usefulness of online PEMs depends on their comprehensibility. This study assessed the readability of PEMs from national Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) organization websites. Patient education materials were collected from 3 prominent PRS organizations-the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS), and the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons (ASRM). ASPS PEMs were organized into reconstructive and cosmetic groups, and then further subdivided into English and Spanish subgroups. ASAPS and ASRM PEMs provided cosmetic and reconstructive comparison groups to ASPS, respectively. Readability scores were generated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and the Spanish SMOG scales. Overall, all PEMs failed to meet readability guidelines. Within ASPS, Spanish PEMs were easier to read than English PEMs ( P < 0.001), and cosmetic PEMs were easier to read than reconstructive PEMs ( P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between ASPS cosmetic and ASAPS PEMs ( P = 0.36), nor between ASPS reconstructive and ASRM PEMs ( P = 0.65). ASAPS and ASRM did not have any Spanish PEMs, and 92% of all ASPS PEMs were in English. Although PRS societies strive to better educate the public on the scope of PRS, PRS ranks lowly in public understanding of its role in patient care. In addition, Spanish language PEMs from the 3 PRS organizations are severely lacking. Addressing these concerns will make online patient resources more equitable for various patient populations.

"Lost in Translation: The Readability Discrepancy of Online Patient Educational Materials for PCL Surgery".

While the internet provides accessible medical information, often times it does not cater to the average patient's ability to understand medical text at a 6th and 8th grade reading level, per American Medical Association (AMA)/National Institute of Health (NIH) recommendations. This study looks to analyze current online materials relating to posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) surgery and their readability, understandability, and actionability. The top 100 Google searchs for "PCL surgery" were compiled. Research papers, procedural protocols, advertisements, and videos were excluded from the data collection. The readability was examined using 7 algorithms: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG index, Automated Readability Index and the Linsear Write Formula. Two evaluators assessed Understandability and Actionability of the results with the Patient Educational Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Outcome measures included Reading Grade Level, Reader's age minimum and maximum, Understandability, and Actionability. Of the 100 results, 16 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between the readability of the results from all algorithms and the current recommendation by AMA and NIH. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that there was no difference in readability as it pertained to which page they appeared on Google search. There was also no difference in readability between individual websites versus organizational websites (hospital and non-hospital educational websites). Three articles were at the 8th grade recommended reading level, and all three were from healthcare institutes. There is a discrepancy in readability between the recommendation of AMA/NIH and online educational materials regarding PCL surgeries, regardless of where they appear on Google and across different forums. The understandability and actionability were equally poor. Future research can focus on the readability and validity of video and social media as they are becoming increasingly popular sources of medical information.

Evaluation of readability levels of online patient education materials for female pelvic floor disorders

Most women hesitate to seek help from healthcare providers as they find it difficult to share complaints of involuntary leakage or vaginal prolapse. Hence, they often refer to the websites of national and/or international bodies’ patient education materials (PEMs), which are considered the most reliable sources. The crucial factor that determines their usefulness is their readability level, which makes them “easy” or “difficult” to read, and is recommended, not to exceed the sixth grade level. In this study, we aimed to assess the readability levels of Turkish translated PEMs from the websites of the International Urogynecological Association and the European Association of Urology and the PEMs originally written in Turkish from the website of the Society of Urological Surgery in Turkey. All the PEMs (n = 52) were analyzed by online calculators using the Atesman formula, Flesch-Kincaid grade level, and Gunning Fog index. The readability parameters, number of sentences, words, letters, syllables, and readability intervals of these methods were compared among the groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test, or ANOVA test, with post hoc comparisons where appropriate. The readability level of all PEMs is at least at an “averagely difficult” interval, according to both assessment methods. No significant differences were found among the PEM groups in terms of readability parameters and assessment methods (P &gt; .05). Whether original or translated, international or national societies’ PEMs’ readability scores were above the recommended level of sixth grade. Thus, the development of PEMs needs to be revised accordingly by relevant authorities.

Readability of Spanish-Language Online Patient Educational Materials for Peripheral Artery Disease Do Not Meet Recommended Standards and Represent a Literacy Barrier to Care

Online resources are a valuable source of information for patients and have been reported to improve engagement and adherence to medical care. However, readability of online patient educational materials (OPEMs) is crucial for them to serve their intended purpose. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that OPEM be written at or below the sixth grade reading level. To avoid disparities in access to comprehensible health information on peripheral artery disease (PAD), it is imperative that the readability of PAD OPEM is appropriate for both English-speaking and Spanish-speaking patients. The aim of this study is to evaluate the readability of PAD OPEM in Spanish and compare to English-language OPEM. We conducted a Google search in English and Spanish using "peripheral arterial disease" and "enfermedad arterial periferica", respectively, and the top 25 patient-accessible articles were collected for each. Articles were categorized by source type: hospital, professional society, or other. Readability of English-language OPEM was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula, Automated Readability Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog, Linsear Write Formula, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and Índice Flesch-Szigriszt Scale. Readability of the articles was compared to the AMA recommendation, between English- and Spanish-language, and across sources using statistical tests appropriate to the data. OPEM from professional societies represented the fewest number of English- (n=7, 28%) and Spanish-language (n=6, 24%) articles. Most English-speaking (n=18, 72%) and Spanish-language (n=20, 80%) OPEM were considered difficult as measured by the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Fernández-Huerta Index, respectively, but did not significantly differ between languages (P=0.59). There were no significant differences in the average readability of all readability measurements across sources (hospital, professional society, or other). All the average readability grade levels for English-speaking and Spanish-language OPEM was significantly higher than the sixth grade reading level (P<0.01). Only 3 (6%) OPEM met the AMA recommended reading level and there was no significant difference between English-language and Spanish-language OPEM (P=1.0). Nearly all Spanish-language and English-language PAD OPEM assessed were written at a reading grade level higher than recommended by the AMA. There was no significant difference in the readability of materials from hospitals or professional societies. To prevent further widening of health disparities related to literacy, health content creators, particularly hospitals and professional societies, should prioritize, develop, and ensure that English-language and Spanish-language patient education materials are written at a level appropriate for the public.

The readability of online patient education materials on maxillomandibular advancement surgery

The readability of online patient education materials on maxillomandibular advancement surgery

Assessment of the Readability of the Online Patient Education Materials of Intensive and Critical Care Societies.

This study aimed to evaluate the readability of patient education materials (PEMs) on websites of intensive and critical care societies. Websites of intensive and critical care societies, which are members of The World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care and The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Cross-sectional observational, internet-based, website, PEMs, readability study. The readability of the PEMs available on societies' sites was evaluated. The readability formulas used were the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog (GFOG). One hundred twenty-seven PEM from 11 different societies were included in our study. In the readability analysis of PEM, the FRES was 58.10 (48.85-63.77) (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.19 (8.93-11.72) and 11.10 (10.11-11.87) years, respectively, and the mean GFOG score was 12.73 (11.37-14.15) (very difficult). All readability formula results were significantly higher than the recommended sixth-grade level ( p < 0.001). All PEMs were above the sixth-grade level when the societies were evaluated individually according to all readability results ( p < 0.05). Compared with the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health, the readability of PEMs in intensive and critical care societies is relatively high. PEMs in intensive and critical care societies should be prepared with attention to recommendations on readability.