Readability Of Patient Education Materials Research Articles

Readability of Patient Educational Materials in English Versus Arabic.

Little research has been done about patient educational materials (PEMs) written in Arabic. Readability of Arabic PEMs has not previously been assessed because, until recently, there was no validated Arabic readability assessment tool. A total of 207 PEMs in both Arabic and English were collected from the Medline Plus portal. Readability was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid in English and the Open Source Metric for Measuring Arabic Narratives, a new Arabic readability test. We also examined Arabic documents for other linguistic features that could lead to confusion. Mean readability grades were 6.1 and 7.1 for Arabic and English, respectively (p < .01). In 31.6% of PEMs, the English text was higher by two or more grades than the Arabic text, and the Arabic text was higher by two or more grades than the English text in 3.8% of PEMs. No diacritical marks in Arabic were used. An array of esoteric Arabic medical terms, transliterated English terms, Arabicized English terms, and written versions of spoken Arabic dialects were used. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(3):e170–e173.]

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Radiation Oncology—Are We Improving?

PurposePrior research suggests that patient education materials on radiation therapy from various professional groups are written at reading levels above national recommendations of sixth to eighth grade. Since publication of these initial findings, many materials from these sources have been updated or newly created. However, the extent to which readability was considered in the design of these new documents remains unknown. Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to evaluate readability of online education materials for radiation therapy, comparing readability of updated materials with those included in the previous study. Methods and MaterialsPatient education materials related to radiation oncology were identified from websites of the 3 professional societies used in the original investigation (the American College of Radiology, the American Cancer Society, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology). The documents included in the first analysis were used as a comparator. To allow for accurate evaluation across groups, materials were matched by content; when necessary, documents were combined from the original cohort to create topically equivalent materials to reflect those currently available on society websites. Identified materials were analyzed using 7 validated readability indices, and results are reported in grade-level equivalents. Original materials were also reanalyzed with the same method. ResultsAmerican Cancer Society materials had the lowest average baseline levels (9.4-11.3 grade level) and showed improved readability in the more recent materials (8.0-10.5 grade level). By contrast, the American Society for Radiation Oncology materials had high average baseline readability levels (11.1-13.9 grade level) that actually worsened in the more recent materials (11.7-16.2 grade level). The number of documents meeting national recommendations did not improve in the updated cohort. ConclusionDespite evidence that readability levels of patient education materials in radiation oncology are unacceptably high, the readability of newly created materials is not consistently improving across professional societies. Although certain groups may incorporate readability in the design of educational documents, more consistent consideration across all organizations is needed.

Health literacy and abdominal aortic aneurysms

ObjectiveLittle is known about the public's knowledge of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Although preventive screening is available, millions of Americans remain unaware of their risk. Improved health literacy has been associated with increased screening and improvement in health outcomes. This study assessed the level of AAA literacy among respondents who participated in a free AAA screening event. MethodsThirteen key words used by vascular surgeons to describe the risk, diagnosis, and treatment options for AAA were extracted from the screening tool used by the nation's largest provider of free AAA diagnostic services, AAAneurysm Outreach. The National Institutes of Health recommends readability of patient education materials to be at the sixth-grade level, but a readability analysis of these words placed them at a grade level of 14.6. A self-administrated questionnaire was developed that allowed respondents to compare each of the extracted words with a definitionally correct or incorrect word that reflected a sixth-grade readability score. These scores were then compared with the available demographics. ResultsThere were 570 completed questionnaires. Of the participants, 57.6% were female, 61.4% were 60 and above, and 32.6% were veterans. The average number of correct answers was 9.31 out of 13 (72% correct). Only 4.7% answered all questions correctly, with 29.1% missing five or more answers. The most frequently missed words were asymptomatic, screening, and cholesterol (56.5%, 44%, and 41.4% incorrect, respectively). The most frequently known terms were abdominal, diagnosis, and genetic (96%, 95.3%, and 91.9% correct, respectively). The remaining words fell between these extremes. Those aged 60 and above scored significantly lower than younger respondents (P < .0001). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect the obtained effects of age at the .05 level was greater than 0.95. Gender and veteran status did not produce any significant differences. ConclusionsThese data suggest an important communication gap between the words used by clinicians to describe the risks, diagnostic results, and treatment options of AAA and the targeted at-risk population, especially those 60 years and older.

Availability and readability of patient education materials for deprescribing: An environmental scan.

To identify and evaluate content and readability of freely available online deprescribing patient education materials (PEMs). Systematic review of PEMs using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews from inception to 25 September 2017 to identify PEMs. Additionally, deprescribing researchers and health professionals were surveyed to identify additional materials. Known repositories of materials were searched followed by a systematic Google search (22-28 January 2018). Materials were evaluated using an approach informed by the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool and the International Patient Decision Aids Standards Inventory. Readability of text-based materials was assessed using the US-based Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade level. Forty-eight PEMs were identified. PEMs addressing deprescribing of medications for symptom control (81%) were most common. Preventative medications were rarely addressed and material (39%) focused on older people. Only 37% of PEMs provided information about both potential benefits (e.g. reducing risk of side effects) and harms (e.g. withdrawal symptoms, increased risk of disease) of deprescribing, while 40% focussed on benefits only. Readability indices indicated an average minimum reading level of Grade 12. Option Grids and Decision Aids (mean reading level below Grade 10) were most suitable for people with average literacy levels. Over 1/3 of deprescribing PEMs present potential benefits and harms of deprescribing indicating most of the freely available materials are not balanced. Most PEMs are pitched above average reading levels making them inaccessible for low health literacy populations.

Readability of Spanish-Language Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org

PurposeReadability of patient education materials has been linked to health outcomes, and reports on patient education materials in radiology have demonstrated readability levels higher than recommended. Few studies in radiology, however, have assessed patient comprehension of Spanish-language health care educational materials. The purpose of this study was thus to assess the readability of patient education materials written in Spanish from RadiologyInfo.org. MethodsAll patient education materials written in Spanish available in July 2017 from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were compiled into a database over a 1-day period. After modification and editing to minimize artificial changes in readability levels, four readability scales were used to assess the texts: the Gilliam-Peña-Mountain scale, the Läsbarhets formula, the rate index formula, and the SOL formula. Readability was compared among scales using analysis of variance, and inter- and intrarater variability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. ResultsIn total, 134 patient education articles written in Spanish were included from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library. The mean readability grade level was the 10th grade reading level or higher for all scales (average, 12th grade); only one article was written below the 8th grade level. There was no significant difference in readability level on the basis of readability scale used. ConclusionsSpanish-language patient educational materials provided at the RadiologyInfo.org website are written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of these patient education materials for English and Spanish speakers alike.

Assessment of the readability of patient education materials regarding breast cancer on websites

Introduction: The Google search engine is a widely used resource for accessing health-related patient education texts. Therefore accessible information in the texts should be accurate, up-to-date and appropriate to the general public health literacy level. In this research, we aimed to analyze the readability of patient education texts prepared for breast cancer presented on internet and to evaluate the content of texts.Methods:A total of 200 web sites at Google search engine were evaluated using the terms “breast cancer and breast mass”. The average readability level was analyzed using Ateşman and Bezirci-Yilmaz readability formulas. The texts were also evaluated in terms of the risk factors identified in the development of breast cancer, the presence of examination and screening methods that could be used in early diagnosis.Results:A total 64 internet sites that are in compliance with the research criteria were evaluated. The overall mean reading level of the texts was found moderate, using the Ateşman formula and college level according to Bezirci. 18 Web sites had both the risk factors identified in the development of breast cancer and the methods of screenings.Conclusions: A total 64 internet sites that are in compliance with the research criteria were evaluated. The overall mean reading level of the texts was found moderate, using the Ateşman formula and college level according to Bezirci. 18 Web sites had both the risk factors identified in the development of breast cancer and the methods of screenings.

Abstract No. 474 Readability of Spanish-language patient education materials from RadiologyInfo.org

The United States currently has the second-largest group of Spanish-speaking citizens in the world with 41 million native Spanish speakers. However, little attention has been paid towards assessing patient comprehension of Spanish-language healthcare educational materials. The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of patient educational materials written in Spanish from the RadiologyInfo.org website. All patient education articles written in Spanish available in 2017 from the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Radiological Society of North America (RSNA)-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were reviewed. We assessed each article for readability using 3 quantitative readability scales validated for assessing Spanish written text: Gilliam-Peña-Mountain scale, Läsbarhets formula (LIX) Rate Index formula (RIX), and SOL formula (modified-SMOG). The number of articles with readability ≤ the 8th grade level (average reading ability of US adults) and the 6th grade level (NIH-recommended level for patient education materials) were determined. 131 patient education articles were reviewed. The mean readability grade level was greater than the 11th grade reading level for all readability scales. Only 1 article was written at less than the eighth grade or the sixth grade levels. Spanish-language patient educational materials provided by the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org website are written at levels too high for the average patient. These findings are consistent with several prior studies assessing radiology-related patient educational materials written in English. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of these patient education materials for English and Spanish-speakers alike.

4:21 PM Abstract No. 80 Readability of patient education materials from RadiologyInfo.org: has there been progress over the past 5 years?

As patients increasingly turn to the Internet for healthcare information, it is imperative that patient educational materials be written at an appropriate readability level. Although RadiologyInfo.org, a patient education library sponsored by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Radiological Society of North America, was shown in 2012 to be written at levels too high for the average patient to adequately comprehend, it is unclear if there has been progress made in the past 5 years. The purpose of this study was to provide a 5-year update on the readability of patient educational materials from RadiologyInfo.org. All patient education articles available in 2017 from the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were reviewed. We assessed each article for readability using 6 quantitative readability scales: the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The number of articles with readability ≤ the 8th-grade level (average reading ability of US adults) and the 6th-grade level (NIH-recommended level for patient education materials) were determined. 131 patient education articles were reviewed. The mean readability grade level was greater than the 11th grade reading level for all readability scales. None of the articles were written at less than the 8th-grade or the 6th-grade levels. Although there has been an increasing awareness of the issue of readability of patient educational materials within the radiological community, the patient educational materials from the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org website are still written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of these patient education materials.

Discrepancy Between Patient Health Literacy Levels and Readability of Patient Education Materials from an Electronic Health Record.

Limited health literacy is associated with worse health outcomes. It is standard practice in many primary care clinics to provide patients with written patient education materials (PEM), which often come directly from an electronic health record (EHR). We compared the health literacy of patients in a primary care residency clinic with EHR PEM readability by grade level. We assessed health literacy using the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine-Short Form (REALM-SF), and determined grade level readability for the PEM distributed for the five most common clinical diagnoses using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid metrics. Among 175 participants, health literacy was ≥9th grade for 76 patients (43.4%), 7th to 8th grade for 66 patients (37.7%), and ≤6th grade for 30 patients (17.1%). Average standard PEM readability by SMOG was grade 9.2 and easy-to-read PEM readability was grade 6.8. These findings suggest a discrepancy between the health literacy of most patients who were surveyed and standard PEM readability. Despite national guidelines encouraging clinicians to provide PEM at an appropriate reading level, our results indicate that PEM from EHR may not be readable for many patients. [Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2017;1(4):e203–e207.]

Readability of Patient Education Materials From the Web Sites of Orthopedic Implant Manufacturers

BackgroundPrior studies indicate that orthopedic patient education materials are written at a level that is too high for the average patient. The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of online patient education materials provided by orthopedic implant manufacturers. MethodsAll patient education articles available in 2013 from the web sites of the 5 largest orthopedic implant manufacturers were identified. Each article was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) readability test. The number of articles with readability ≤ the eighth-grade level (average reading ability of US adults) and the sixth-grade level (recommended level for patient education materials) was determined. Mean readability levels of each company’s articles were compared using analysis of variance (significance set at P < .05). ResultsA total of 581 articles were reviewed from the 5 largest implant manufacturers. The mean overall FK grade level was 10.9 (range, 3.8-16.1). Only 58 articles (10%) were written ≤ the eighth-grade level, and only 13 (2.2%) were ≤ the sixth-grade level. The mean FK grade level was significantly different among groups (Smith & Nephew = 12.0, Stryker = 11.6, Biomet = 11.3, DePuy = 10.6, Zimmer = 10.1; P < .0001). ConclusionThe majority of patient education materials from implant manufacturers are written at a level too high to be comprehended by the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of orthopedic patient education materials.

A quantitative readability analysis of patient education resources from gastroenterology society websites.

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. 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. 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. 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.

The Readability of AAOS Patient Education Materials: Evaluating the Progress Since 2008

The Internet has become a major resource for patients; however, patient education materials are frequently written at relatively high levels of reading ability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials on the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) web site. Readability scores were calculated for all patient education articles on the AAOS web site using 5 algorithms: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) Grade, Coleman-Liau Index, and Gunning-Fog Index. The mean readability scores were compared across the anatomic categories to which they pertained. Using a liberal measure of readability, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, 3.9% of articles were written at or below the recommended sixth-grade reading level, and 84% of the articles were written above the eighth-grade reading level. Articles in the present study had a lower mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level than those available in 2008 (p < 0.00005). Articles categorized as "Hand & Wrist" or "Foot & Ankle" had significantly lower mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores than the mean for all categories (p < 0.0005). Regardless of the algorithm used, the mean readability levels of AAOS articles are higher than generally recommended. Although the mean Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was lower in the present study than it was in 2008, a need remains to improve the readability of AAOS patient education articles. Ensuring that online patient education materials are written at an appropriate reading grade level would be expected to improve physician-patient communication.

Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review.

BackgroundPatient education materials should be written at a level that is understandable for patients with low health literacy. The aims of this study are (1) to review the literature on readability of ophthalmic patient education materials and (2) to evaluate and revise our institution’s patient education materials about glaucoma using evidence-based guidelines on writing for patients with low health literacy.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on the PubMed/MEDLINE database for studies that have evaluated readability level of ophthalmic patient education materials, and the reported readability scores were assessed. Additionally, we collected evidence-based guidelines for writing easy-to-read patient education materials, and these recommendations were applied to revise 12 patient education handouts on various glaucoma topics at our institution. Readability measures, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and word count were calculated for the original and revised documents. The original and revised versions of the handouts were then scored in random order by two glaucoma specialists using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument, a grading scale used to evaluate suitability of health information materials for patients. Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability measures, word count, and SAM score between original and revised handouts. Finally, five glaucoma patients were interviewed to discuss the revised materials, and patient feedback was analyzed qualitatively.ResultsOur literature search included 13 studies that evaluated a total of 950 educational materials. Among the mean FKGL readability scores reported in these studies, the median was 11 (representing an eleventh-grade reading level). At our institution, handouts’ readability averaged a tenth-grade reading level (FKGL = 10.0 ± 1.6), but revising the handouts improved their readability to a sixth-grade reading level (FKGL = 6.4 ± 1.2) (p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean SAM score of our institution’s handouts improved from 60 ± 7 % (adequate) for the original versions to 88 ± 4 % (superior) for the revised handouts (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur systematic review of the literature reveals that ophthalmic patient education materials are consistently written at a level that is too high for many patients to understand. Our institution’s experience suggests that applying guidelines on writing easy-to-understand material can improve the readability and suitability of educational materials for patients with low health literacy.

Is the Readability of Spine-Related Patient Education Material Improving?: An Assessment of Subspecialty Websites.

Analysis of spine-related patient education materials (PEMs) from subspecialty websites. The aim of this study was to assess the readability of spine-related PEMs and compare to readability data from 2008. Many spine patients use the Internet for health information. Several agencies recommend that the readability of online PEMs should be no greater than a sixth-grade reading level, as health literacy predicts health-related quality of life outcomes. This study evaluated whether the North American Spine Society (NASS), American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) online PEMs meet recommended readability guidelines for medical information. All publicly accessible spine-related entries within the patient education section of the NASS, AANS, and AAOS websites were analyzed for grade level readability using the Flesch-Kincaid formula. Readability scores were also compared with a similar 2008 analysis. Comparative statistics were performed. A total of 125 entries from the subspecialty websites were analyzed. The average (SD) readability of the online articles was grade level 10.7 (2.3). Of the articles, 117 (93.6%) had a readability score above the sixth-grade level. The readability of the articles exceeded the maximum recommended level by an average of 4.7 grade levels (95% CI, 4.292-5.103; P < 0.001). Compared with 2008, the three societies published more spine-related patient education articles (61 vs. 125, P = 0.045) and the average readability level improved from 11.5 to 10.7 (P = 0.018). Of three examined societies, only one showed significant improvement over time. Our findings suggest that the spine-related PEMs on the NASS, AAOS, and AANS websites have readability levels that may make comprehension difficult for a substantial portion of the patient population. Although some progress has been made in the readability of PEMs over the past 7 years, additional improvement is necessary. 2.

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Hand Surgery and Health Literacy Best Practices for Improvement

This study aimed to update a portion of a 2008 study of patient education materials from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand Web site with new readability results, to compare the results to health literacy best practices, and to make recommendations to the field for improvement. A sample of 77 patient education documents were downloaded from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand Web site, handcare.org, and assessed for readability using 4 readability tools. Mean readability grade-level scores were derived. Best practices for plain language for written health materials were compiled from 3 government agency sources. The mean readability of the 77 patient education documents in the study was 9.3 grade level. This reading level is reduced from the previous study in 2008 in which the overall mean was 10.6; however, the current sample grade level still exceeds recommended readability according to best practices. Despite a small body of literature on the readability of patient education materials related to hand surgery and other orthopedic issues over the last 7 years, readability was not dramatically improved in our current sample. Using health literacy as a framework, improvements in hand surgery patient education may result in better understanding and better outcomes for patients seeing hand surgeons. Improved understanding of patient education materials related to hand surgery may improve preventable negative outcomes that are clinically significant as well as contribute to improved quality of life for patients.

Hearing Aid Patient Education Materials: Is There Room for Improvement?

The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the readability of patient education materials (PEMs) from leading manufacturers of behind-the-ear style hearing aids and popular hearing aid information Web sites to determine if they meet guidelines recommended by public health agencies. Analysis of hearing aid PEMs. Printed user guides from six of the leading manufacturers of BTE hearing aids and 15 of the most popular hearing aid-information Web sites were accessed online and analyzed for readability using the Gunning-Fog Index, New Fog Count, Raygor Estimate Graph, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease score. Overall average grade-level readability for all six printed manufacturer user manuals was calculated to be written at a 10th grade reading level. Overall average grade-level readabilities for all 15 popular online hearing aid-information Web sites representing professional organizations, suppliers, and health information services were calculated to be written at 10th, 10th, and 11th grade reading levels, respectively. Average Flesch Reading Ease scores for all printed guides and online patient information Web sites were calculated to fall within the fairly difficult category for readability. PEMs provided by top hearing aid manufactures and popular hearing aid Web sites are written well above the reading level recommended by the National Institutes of Health. Consideration should be given toward simplifying these materials in order to enhance user experience and increase compliance among behind-the-ear hearing aid users.

Readability of Trauma-Related Patient Education Materials From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Context:According to the american medical association (AMA) and the national institutes of health (NIH), the recommended readability of patient education materials should be no greater than a sixth-grade reading level. The online patient education information produced by the american academy of orthopaedic surgeons (AAOS) may be too complicated for some patients to understand. This study evaluated whether the AAOS’s online trauma-related patient education materials meet recommended readability guidelines for medical information.Evidence Acquisition:Ninety-nine articles from the “Broken Bones and Injuries” section of the AAOS-produced patient education website, orthoinfo.org, were analyzed for grade level readability using the Flesch-Kincaid formula, a widely-used and validated tool to evaluate the text reading level. Results for each webpage were compared to the AMA/NIH recommended sixth-grade reading level and the average reading level of U.S. adults (eighth-grade).Results:The mean (SD) grade level readability for all patient education articles was 8.8 (1.1). All but three of the articles had a readability score above the sixth-grade level. The readability of the articles exceeded this level by an average of 2.8 grade levels (95% confidence interval, 2.6 - 3.0; P < 0.0001). Furthermore, the average readability of the articles exceeded the average reading skill level of U.S. adults (eighth grade) by nearly an entire grade level (95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.0; P < 0.0001).Conclusions:The majority of the trauma-related articles from the AAOS patient education website have readability levels that may make comprehension difficult for a substantial portion of the patient population.

Analysis of the readability of patient education materials in pediatric ophthalmology

Analysis of the readability of patient education materials in pediatric ophthalmology

Readability of Patient Education Materials From Professional Societies in Radiation Oncology: Are We Meeting the National Standard?

Recent national trends have highlighted the importance of patient education. The U. S. Department of Health and Human Services recently developed a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy ( 1 United States Department of Health and Human Services National action plan to improve health literacy. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Washington, DC2010 Google Scholar ). Physicians providing oncologic care, specifically radiation therapy, may inadvertently use advanced and unfamiliar vocabulary when communicating with patients. Patient handouts are ubiquitous in the medical field and convey critical information that may be difficult to communicate in a single meeting. The American Medical Association (AMA) 2007 Health Literacy Manual states that written materials should be written at or below the sixth-grade level ( 2 Weiss B.D. Manual for clinicians. Health literacy and patient safety: Help patients understand. American Medical Association Foundation, Chicago, IL2007 Google Scholar ). For example, “The tiredness patients experience is usually mild or moderate and is different for each patient” and “If you have fatigue, be sure to tell your doctor or nurse. You can say it's mild, moderate, or severe” have grade levels of 12 and 3, respectively. In Regard to Byun et alInternational Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, PhysicsVol. 93Issue 3PreviewTo the Editor: We appreciate Byun and Golden (1) surveying the readability of important educational materials, demonstrating that many documents are at a high reading level. A need to optimize patient engagement, education, and experience has been increasingly recognized in standards and quality indicators (2). An embracing strategy for these is to address patient health literacy (HL), of which readability is 1 component. Full-Text PDF

The readability of patient education materials designed for patients with psoriasis: What have we learned in 20 years?

The readability of patient education materials designed for patients with psoriasis: What have we learned in 20 years?