Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook Research Articles

Assessing the readability and quality of online information on benign paroxysmal positional vertigo.

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV) is the most common cause of peripheral vertigo. It can have a significant impact on quality of life, with individuals often seeking information online for reassurance and education. The aim of this study is to assess the readability and quality of online information on BPPV. The terms 'benign paroxysmal positional vertigo' and 'BPPV' were entered into Google. The first 50 websites generated for each search term were screened. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Spearman's correlation between quality and readability was calculated. A total of 39 websites met the inclusion criteria. The mean and 95% confidence intervals for the FRES, FKGL, SMOG, GFOG and DISCERN scores were 50.2 (46.1-54.3), 10.6 (9.87-11.4), 10.1 (9.5-10.7), 13.6 (12.7-14.4) and 36.7 (34.6-38.7), respectively. Weak correlation was noted between DISCERN and FRES (rs = -0.23, p = 0.17). Online information on BPPV is generally of poor quality and low readability. It is essential that healthcare professionals inform their patients of this limitation and advocate for improved online patient education resources that are both high quality and easy to comprehend.

"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.

A comparative analysis of AI-based chatbots: Assessing data quality in orthognathic surgery related patient information

IntroductionThe aim of the current study is to evaluate the quality, reliability, readability, and similarity of data provided by different AI-based chatbots in the field of orthognathic surgery. Materials and methodsGuidelines on orthognathic surgery were reviewed, and a list of questions for patients to ask chatbots was produced by two reasearchers. The questions were categorized into 'General Information and Procedure' and 'Results and Recovery', with 30 questions in each category. Five different scoring criteria were used to evaluate the chatbot responses to 60 questions: Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, Reliability Scoring System (adapted from DISCERN), Global Quality Scale (GQS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Similarity Index. ResultsThe highest mean values were observed in OpenEvidence for EQIP tool, SMOG, and Similarity Index, while for Reliability and GQS assessment criteria, MediSearch showed the highest values. When evaluated in terms of reliability and quality, all three AI-based chatbots demonstrated high reliability and good quality; however, they required at least a college-level education for readability based on the SMOG index. Additionally, upon assessment of similarity, ChatGPT-4 displayed high originality, while OpenEvidence exhibited a high degree of similarity. ConclusionAI-based chatbots with a variety of features have usually provided answers with high quality, reliability, and difficult readability to questions. Although the medical information in the field of orthognathic surgery provided through chatbots is of higher quality, it is recommended that individuals consult their healthcare professionals on this issue.

The readability of online patient education materials on maxillomandibular advancement surgery.

Maxillomandibular advancement (MMA) is an effective surgical option for patients suffering from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). As a relatively new treatment option, patients may turn to the Internet to learn more. However, online patient education materials (OPEMs) on MMA may be written at a higher literacy level than recommended for patients. The aim of this study was to analyze the readability of OPEMs on MMA. A Google search of "maxillomandibular advancement" was performed, and the first 100 results were screened. Websites that met eligibility criteria were analyzed for their readability using the Automated Readability Index (ARI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog (GF), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and compared to the recommended sixth-grade reading level using one-tailed t tests. Readability scores were compared based on the type of website, including hospitals/universities or physician clinics, using ANOVA tests. The mean (SD) for ARI, CLI, FKGL, GF, and SMOG was 11.91 (2.43), 13.42 (1.81), 11.91 (2.06), 14.32 (2.34), and 13.99 (1.56), respectively. All readability scores were significantly higher than a sixth-grade reading level (p < 0.001). After comparing readability scores between different website types (university/hospital, clinic, and other), there was no statistical difference found. The available OPEMs on MMA surgery for OSA are above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Identifying and reducing the gap between the reading levels of OPEMs and the reading level of the patient are needed to encouragea more active role, informed decisions, and better patient satisfaction.

AI-Generated Information for Vascular Patients: Assessing the Standard of Procedure-Specific Information Provided by the ChatGPT AI-Language Model.

Introduction Ensuring access to high-quality information is paramount to facilitating informed surgical decision-making. The use of the internet to access health-related information is increasing, along with the growing prevalence of AI language models such as ChatGPT. We aim to assess the standard of AI-generated patient-facing information through a qualitative analysis of its readability and quality. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective qualitative analysis of information regarding three common vascular procedures: endovascular aortic repair (EVAR), endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), and femoro-popliteal bypass (FPBP). The ChatGPT responses were compared to patient information leaflets provided by the vascular charity, Circulation Foundation UK. Readability was assessed using four readability scores: the Flesch-Kincaid reading ease (FKRE) score, the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), the Gunning fog score (GFS), and the simple measure of gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Quality was assessed using the DISCERN tool by two independent assessors. Results The mean FKRE score was 33.3, compared to 59.1 for the information provided by the Circulation Foundation (SD=14.5, p=0.025) indicating poor readability of AI-generated information. The FFKGL indicated that the expected grade of students likely to read and understand ChatGPT responses was consistently higher than compared to information leaflets at 12.7 vs. 9.4 (SD=1.9, p=0.002). Two metrics measure readability in terms of the number of years of education required to understand a piece of writing: the GFS and SMOG. Both scores indicated that AI-generated answers were less accessible. The GFS for ChatGPT-provided information was 16.7 years versus 12.8 years for the leaflets (SD=2.2, p=0.002) and the SMOG index scores were 12.2 and 9.4 years for ChatGPT and the patient information leaflets, respectively (SD=1.7, p=0.001). The DISCERN scores were consistently higher in human-generated patient information leaflets compared to AI-generated information across all procedures; the mean score for the information provided by ChatGPT was 50.3 vs. 56.0 for the Circulation Foundation information leaflets (SD=3.38, p<0.001). Conclusion We concluded that AI-generated information about vascular surgical procedures is currently poor in both the readability of text and the quality of information. Patients should be directed to reputable, human-generated information sources from trusted professional bodies to supplement direct education from the clinician during the pre-procedure consultation process.

Optimizing Ophthalmology Patient Education via ChatBot-Generated Materials: Readability Analysis of AI-Generated Patient Education Materials and The American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Patient Brochures.

This study aims to compare the readability of patient education materials (PEM) of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery to that of PEMs generated by the AI-chat bots ChatGPT and Google Bard. PEMs on 16 common American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery topics were generated by 2 AI models, ChatGPT 4.0 and Google Bard, with and without a 6th-grade reading level prompt modifier. The PEMs were analyzed using 7 readability metrics: Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog Index, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index Score, Automated Readability Index, and Linsear Write Readability Score. Each AI-generated PEM was compared with the equivalent American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery PEM. Across all readability indices, PEM generated by ChatGPT 4.0 consistently had the highest readability scores, indicating that the material generated by this AI chatbot may be most difficult to read in its unprompted form (Flesch Reading Ease Score: 36.5; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook: 14.7). Google's Bard was able to generate content that was easier to read than both the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and ChatGPT 4.0 (Flesch Reading Ease Score: 52.3; Simple Measure of Gobbledygook: 12.7). When prompted to produce PEM at a 6th-grade reading level, both ChatGPT 4.0 and Bard were able to significantly improve in their readability scores, with prompted ChatGPT 4.0 being able to consistently generate content that was easier to read (Flesch Reading Ease Score: 67.9, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook: 10.2). This study suggests that AI tools, when guided by appropriate prompts, can generate accessible and comprehensible PEMs in the field of ophthalmic plastic and reconstructive surgeries, balancing readability with the complexity of the necessary information.

ChatGPT: is it good for our glaucoma patients?

PurposeOur study investigates ChatGPT and its ability to communicate with glaucoma patients.MethodsWe inputted eight glaucoma-related questions/topics found on the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO)’s website into ChatGPT. We used the Flesch–Kincaid test, Gunning Fog Index, SMOG Index, and Dale–Chall readability formula to evaluate the comprehensibility of its responses for patients. ChatGPT’s answers were compared with those found on the AAO’s website.ResultsChatGPT’s responses required reading comprehension of a higher grade level (average = grade 12.5 ± 1.6) than that of the text on the AAO’s website (average = 9.4 grade ± 3.5), (0.0384). For the eight responses, the key ophthalmic terms appeared 34 out of 86 times in the ChatGPT responses vs. 86 out of 86 times in the text on the AAO’s website. The term “eye doctor” appeared once in the ChatGPT text, but the formal term “ophthalmologist” did not appear. The term “ophthalmologist” appears 26 times on the AAO’s website. The word counts of the answers produced by ChatGPT and those on the AAO’s website were similar (p = 0.571), with phrases of a homogenous length.ConclusionChatGPT trains on the texts, phrases, and algorithms inputted by software engineers. As ophthalmologists, through our websites and journals, we should consider encoding the phrase “see an ophthalmologist”. Our medical assistants should sit with patients during their appointments to ensure that the text is accurate and that they fully comprehend its meaning. ChatGPT is effective for providing general information such as definitions or potential treatment options for glaucoma. However, ChatGPT has a tendency toward repetitive answers and, due to their elevated readability scores, these could be too difficult for a patient to read.

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.

New Frontiers in Health Literacy: Using ChatGPT to Simplify Health Information for People in the Community

BackgroundMost health information does not meet the health literacy needs of our communities. Writing health information in plain language is time-consuming but the release of tools like ChatGPT may make it easier to produce reliable plain language health information.ObjectiveTo investigate the capacity for ChatGPT to produce plain language versions of health texts.DesignObservational study of 26 health texts from reputable websites.MethodsChatGPT was prompted to ‘rewrite the text for people with low literacy’. Researchers captured three revised versions of each original text.Main MeasuresObjective health literacy assessment, including Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), proportion of the text that contains complex language (%), number of instances of passive voice and subjective ratings of key messages retained (%).Key ResultsOn average, original texts were written at grade 12.8 (SD = 2.2) and revised to grade 11.0 (SD = 1.2), p < 0.001. Original texts were on average 22.8% complex (SD = 7.5%) compared to 14.4% (SD = 5.6%) in revised texts, p < 0.001. Original texts had on average 4.7 instances (SD = 3.2) of passive text compared to 1.7 (SD = 1.2) in revised texts, p < 0.001. On average 80% of key messages were retained (SD = 15.0). The more complex original texts showed more improvements than less complex original texts. For example, when original texts were ≥ grade 13, revised versions improved by an average 3.3 grades (SD = 2.2), p < 0.001. Simpler original texts (< grade 11) improved by an average 0.5 grades (SD = 1.4), p < 0.001.ConclusionsThis study used multiple objective assessments of health literacy to demonstrate that ChatGPT can simplify health information while retaining most key messages. However, the revised texts typically did not meet health literacy targets for grade reading score, and improvements were marginal for texts that were already relatively simple.

Assessment of Quality and Readability of Online Patient-Centered Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Apicoectomy.

Background Endodontic microsurgery (apicectomy) can be considered in cases of persistent infection that is resistant to conventional root canal treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of the available online information regarding the apicectomy procedure in Arabic. Methods Online search on the three most commonly used websites (Google, Yahoo, and Bing) using one keyword. The first 100 websites from each search were analyzed for quality and readability using DISCERN instrument scores, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, the Health On the Net (HON) seal, Flesch Reading Ease Scores (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. Results Searching using the Arabic translation for "root end resection surgery" revealed 349,900 websites. Following the inclusion criteria, 31 websites were selected and evaluated in this study. The selected websites belonged to either non-profit organizations or commercial websites. The quality of most of the selected websites received a moderate score (83.9%) using the DISCERN tool. None of the selected websites obtained the HON seal. Quality evaluation using the JAMA benchmarks revealed that currency was the most achieved item (45.2%), followed by authorship (22.6%). Evaluation of the readability of the selected websites using the FRES, FKGL, and SMOG showed that the included websites were considered readable. Conclusion Although the included websites were readable, the quality of the websites was moderate. There is an urgent need to create more trustworthy and readable websites explaining the different endodontic treatments.

Availability and Readability Level of Online Patient Education Materials Provided by Cleft Lip and Palate Teams.

Evaluate the readability of online English and Spanish cleft lip and palate patient education materials. Review of free online materials. English and Spanish language online patient education materials on cleft lip and palate were collected from American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams. English materials were analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, and Coleman-Liau readability calculators. Spanish materials were analyzed using the Fry Graph, Fernandez Huerta, and INFLESZ calculators. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for variability between the readability tools. Readability levels were examined for both sets of materials. 171 (90.5%) teams provided English language materials online, with an average readability score calculated as 10.5 ± 2.9 (10th-11th grade). A total of 44 (23.2%) teams listed Spanish language materials online, with average readability score of 7.9 ± 1.2 (8th grade). ANOVA demonstrated statistically significant variability between the readability assessment tools (P < .01). Online cleft lip and palate patient education material provided by ACPA craniofacial teams were more available in English than in Spanish. Both sets of materials demonstrated readability levels above the recommended 6th-7th grade. Refining readability is associated with lowered healthcare costs and increased patient satisfaction.

Description of the Content and Quality of Publicly Available Information on the Internet About Inhaled Volatile Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia: Descriptive Study.

More than 300 million patients undergo surgical procedures requiring anesthesia worldwide annually. There are 2 standard-of-care general anesthesia administration options: inhaled volatile anesthesia (INVA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). There is limited evidence comparing these methods and their impact on patient experiences and outcomes. Patients often seek this information from sources such as the internet. However, the majority of websites on anesthesia-related topics are not comprehensive, updated, and fully accurate. The quality and availability of web-based patient information about INVA and TIVA have not been sufficiently examined. This study aimed to (1) assess information on the internet about INVA and TIVA for availability, readability, accuracy, and quality and (2) identify high-quality websites that can be recommended to patients to assist in their anesthesia information-seeking and decision-making. Web-based searches were conducted using Google from April 2022 to November 2022. Websites were coded using a coding instrument developed based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria and adapted to be appropriate for assessing websites describing INVA and TIVA. Readability was calculated with the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) grade level and the simple measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula. A total of 67 websites containing 201 individual web pages were included for coding and analysis. Most of the websites provided a basic definition of general anesthesia (unconsciousness, n=57, 85%; analgesia, n=47, 70%). Around half of the websites described common side effects of general anesthesia, while fewer described the rare but serious adverse events, such as intraoperative awareness (n=31, 46%), allergic reactions or anaphylaxis (n=29, 43%), and malignant hyperthermia (n=18, 27%). Of the 67 websites, the median F-K grade level was 11.3 (IQR 9.5-12.8) and the median SMOG score was 13.5 (IQR 12.2-14.4), both far above the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended reading level of sixth grade. A total of 51 (76%) websites distinguished INVA versus TIVA as general anesthesia options. A total of 12 of the 51 (24%) websites explicitly stated that there is a decision to be considered about receiving INVA versus TIVA for general anesthesia. Only 10 (20%) websites made any direct comparisons between INVA and TIVA, discussing their positive and negative features. A total of 12 (24%) websites addressed the concept of shared decision-making in planning anesthesia care, but none specifically asked patients to think about which features of INVA and TIVA matter the most to them. While the majority of websites described INVA and TIVA, few provided comparisons. There is a need for high-quality patient education and decision support about the choice of INVA versus TIVA to provide accurate and more comprehensive information in a format conducive to patient understanding.

How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability.

This study aimed to examine the readability, reliability, quality, and content of patient education materials (PEM) on the Internet about "Helicobacter pylori (H pylori)." A search was conducted on March 14, 2023, using the keyword "H pylori" in the Google search engine. The readability of PEMs was assessed using the Flesch reading ease score, FKGL, simple measure of gobbledygook, and gunning fog readability formulas. The reliability and quality of the websites were determined using the Journal of American Medical Association score, health on the net foundation code of conduct, global quality score, and DISCERN score. A total of 93 patient education websites were included in the study. In the readability analysis of PEMs, we determined that the Flesch reading ease score was 49,73 (47,46-52,00) (difficult), the mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level and simple measure of gobbledygook were 9,69 (9,26-10,12) and 9,28 (8,96-9,61) years, respectively, and the mean gunning fog score was 12,47 (12,03-12,91) (very difficult). Most of the evaluated patient educational materials were commercial websites (n = 50, 53.8%). It was found that 16.1% of the websites were of high quality according to global quality score, 30.1% were HON code certified, and 23.7% of the websites were highly reliable according to Journal of American Medical Association scores. There was no statistically significant difference between website typologies and readability (P > .05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between website typologies and quality and reliability scores (P < .005). Compared to the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health, the readability of H pylori-related internet-based PEMs is quite high. On the other hand, the reliability and quality of the PEMs were determined as moderate to poor. PEMs for issues threatening public health should be prepared with attention to recommendations on readability.

An empirical analysis of the (Un)readability of inmate handbooks

ABSTRACT All 50 state Departments of Corrections (DOC) provide some form of handbook to inmates upon their incarceration. Handbooks specify, in part, the rules, regulations, responsibilities, and consequences of behavior critical for upholding safety, security, and order within correctional institutions. Considering the vital importance of these documents to the inmate and the institution, it is essential they be written at a level accessible and understandable to incarcerees. The present multi-method study first assessed the purpose of inmate handbooks. Qualitative results suggest handbooks serve as informational guides regarding the facility’s rules. Moreover, a significant portion of the handbooks emphasize that inmates bear the responsibility of understanding and adhering to the instructions outlined in the provided guide. Next, quantitative analysis of 74 inmate handbooks from DOCs in 49 US states was completed, utilizing three established readability metrics (the Flesch Readability Scale, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and the SMOG index), to determine whether handbooks are suitably written for their intended inmate audience. All 74 reviewed handbooks significantly exceeded a reasonable expectation of readability given the likely literacy and education levels of inmates. Recommendations are provided for the improvement of inmate handbook readability drawing on the empirical findings of the present study.

Quality and readability of web-based information on dental caries in Arabic: an infodemiological study

BackgroundWeb-based information on dental caries in Arabic remains poorly understood. This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of web-based information about dental caries in Arabic.MethodsThe first 100 websites in Arabic about dental caries were retrieved from Google and Bing using common terms. The websites were classified and evaluated for quality based on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, the DISCERN tool, and the presence of the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode). Readability was assessed using online readability indexes.ResultsA total of 102 Arabic websites were included. The JAMA benchmark score was low (m = 0.36, SD = 0.56), with 67.7% failing to meet any of the JAMA criteria. The DISCERN total score mean was 37.68 (SD = 7.99), with a majority (67.65%) of moderate quality. None of the websites had the HONcode. Readability was generally good, with 52.94% of websites having a Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) < 7, 91.18% having a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) < 7, and 85.29% having a Flesch reading ease (FRE) score ≥ 80. There was a positive correlation between JAMA and DISCERN scores (p < 0.001). DISCERN scores were positively correlated with the number of words (p < 0.001) and sentences (p = 0.004) on the websites. However, JAMA or DISCERN scores were not correlated with FKGL, SMOG, or FRE scores (p > 0.05).ConclusionsThe quality of Arabic dental caries websites was found to be low, despite their readability. Efforts are needed to introduce more reliable sources for discussing dental caries and treatment options on sites aimed at Arabic populations.

When Checking a Box is not Enough: The (Un)Readability of PREA Messaging

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was implemented to prevent sexual assault within correctional facilities. To communicate PREA principles to inmates, written materials including handbooks, policies, and brochures are utilized. This research evaluates the readability of PREA messaging, employing three established metrics: Flesh Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Findings reveal significant deviation from recommended reading targets for both the general (7th–8th grade) and inmate (5th–6th grade) populations. Prison Rape Elimination Act policies averaged a 16th-grade level, raising concerns regarding the efficacy of PREA implementation and compliance in light of potential comprehension challenges.

A multimetric health literacy analysis of online gender affirmation surgery materials: From facial to genital surgery

The transgender patient population is expanding, and gender affirming surgery (GAS) volume is increasing. Accurate, comprehensive, and easily navigable resources on GAS are lacking. We aim to evaluate the readability of online materials for specific gender affirming surgical procedures to identify mechanisms of improving information access for transgender patients. "Facial feminization", "facial masculinization", "MTF breast augmentation", "FTM chest masculinization", "MTF vaginoplasty", "metoidioplasty", and "FTM phalloplasty" were searched on Google. Per keyword, the first 75 text-containing results were included. Text was analyzed for reading difficulty using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading-Ease (FKRE) test and grade level using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) formula, Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Coleman-Liau Index (CLI). Scores were compared using independent t-and ANOVA tests (α=0.05). Mean readability scores (FKRE 37.44) and grade-levels (FKGL 12.87, GFI 15.61, SMOG 11.91, CLI 15.00) correlated with college-level difficulty. Masculinizing surgical materials were more difficult to read than feminizing ones (p≤0.023). Top surgery materials were easier to read than facial and genital surgery materials (p≤0.013). Specifically, chest masculinization resources were more difficult to read than those for breast augmentation (p≤0.006). No differences were found between facial feminization and masculinization surgery resources, nor between resources for different gender affirming genital surgeries. Online GAS materials are written above the recommended 6th grade reading-level, with resources for transgender men being significantly more challenging to understand. Improving readability of online resources can help overcome barriers to care for the transgender patient population.

Online Patient Education Materials on Iron Deficiency Anemia Are Too Difficult to Read and Low Quality: A Readability and Quality Analysis.

Introduction Patients increasingly rely on online health information to understand and manage their diseases. Concerns about the quality and readability of these materials have been reported in the literature. Poor quality and difficult-to-read information lead to delayed diagnoses and adverse outcomes. We assessed the quality and readability of online health information about iron deficiency anemia (IDA) on Google. Method We searched for online web pages using the term "iron deficiency anemia"on Google. One hundred and twelve out of 200 web pages were included. We assessed web page typology, readability, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) score, the DISCERN score, and the Health on the Net Foundation certification (HONcode). Statistical analysis was performed with R version 4.2.2. Result Non-profit and scientific journal web pages were the most common. Scientific journal web pages were of the highest quality. News web pages were the most readable. The first Google Page web pages did not have greater JAMA scores or lower Flesch-Kinkaid Reading Grade Level (FKGL) and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) scores. Forty-six percent of all web pages were high-quality. Web pages on the first Google page were more likely to have HONCode certification. Conclusion We highlight gaps in the readability and quality of online information about IDA. Online web pages exceeded the recommended reading level for patients. Most web pages were low quality; only a quarter were HONcode-certified; and the first Google page web pages were not higher in quality than the later web pages on search.

Assessment of Arabic Web-Based Knowledge About Clear Aligners: An Infodemiologic Study.

Orthodontic treatments aim to enhance dental aesthetics, functionality, and long-term oral health. Clear aligners have gained popularity as an aesthetic and convenient option for patients seeking orthodontic correction. However, the quality and readability of online Arabic patient-centered information regarding clear aligners has not been studied yet. The aim of our study is to investigate the quality and readability of Arabic patient-centered information about clear aligners. We conducted an extensive evaluation of Arabic web-based content pertaining to clear aligners using three prominent search engines. Eligible websites were categorized based on specialization, organizational affiliation, material type, and presentation style. We assessed website quality and reliability using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA)benchmarks, and Health on the Net (HON) code. In addition, we measured readability using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Out of 600 search results, 195 websites met the inclusion criteria. None of the websites were HON-code accredited. DISCERN assessments revealed low content quality, with none of the websites achieving high-quality status. The JAMA benchmarks showed limited compliance with the four items, with currency being the most frequently achieved. Readability assessments indicated generally high readability, with FKGL scores suggesting easy comprehension for the average readers. While Arabic web-based information on clear aligners is highly readable, its credibility and quality require significant improvement. Websites should adhere to medical information standards, subject content to rigorous assessments, and seek accreditation to ensure reliability. Enhancing the accessibility and comprehensibility of health-related content will empower individuals to make informed health decisions. Addressing limitations, such as social media and video content evaluation, and conducting comparisons with English websites in future research will provide a more comprehensive understanding of the landscape of online orthodontic information.

Large Language Model−Based Chatbot vs Surgeon-Generated Informed Consent Documentation for Common Procedures

Informed consent is a critical component of patient care before invasive procedures, yet it is frequently inadequate. Electronic consent forms have the potential to facilitate patient comprehension if they provide information that is readable, accurate, and complete; it is not known if large language model (LLM)-based chatbots may improve informed consent documentation by generating accurate and complete information that is easily understood by patients. To compare the readability, accuracy, and completeness of LLM-based chatbot- vs surgeon-generated information on the risks, benefits, and alternatives (RBAs) of common surgical procedures. This cross-sectional study compared randomly selected surgeon-generated RBAs used in signed electronic consent forms at an academic referral center in San Francisco with LLM-based chatbot-generated (ChatGPT-3.5, OpenAI) RBAs for 6 surgical procedures (colectomy, coronary artery bypass graft, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, knee arthroplasty, and spinal fusion). Readability was measured using previously validated scales (Flesh-Kincaid grade level, Gunning Fog index, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and the Coleman-Liau index). Scores range from 0 to greater than 20 to indicate the years of education required to understand a text. Accuracy and completeness were assessed using a rubric developed with recommendations from LeapFrog, the Joint Commission, and the American College of Surgeons. Both composite and RBA subgroup scores were compared. The total sample consisted of 36 RBAs, with 1 RBA generated by the LLM-based chatbot and 5 RBAs generated by a surgeon for each of the 6 surgical procedures. The mean (SD) readability score for the LLM-based chatbot RBAs was 12.9 (2.0) vs 15.7 (4.0) for surgeon-generated RBAs (P = .10). The mean (SD) composite completeness and accuracy score was lower for surgeons' RBAs at 1.6 (0.5) than for LLM-based chatbot RBAs at 2.2 (0.4) (P < .001). The LLM-based chatbot scores were higher than the surgeon-generated scores for descriptions of the benefits of surgery (2.3 [0.7] vs 1.4 [0.7]; P < .001) and alternatives to surgery (2.7 [0.5] vs 1.4 [0.7]; P < .001). There was no significant difference in chatbot vs surgeon RBA scores for risks of surgery (1.7 [0.5] vs 1.7 [0.4]; P = .38). The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that despite not being perfect, LLM-based chatbots have the potential to enhance informed consent documentation. If an LLM were embedded in electronic health records in a manner compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, it could be used to provide personalized risk information while easing documentation burden for physicians.