Academic and community hernia center websites in the United States fail to meet healthcare literacy standards of readability.
Health Literacy and Academic Hernia Centers
Health literac and hernia repairs
Health literacy and Community Hernia Centers
Readability and Hernia centers
Journal
Hernia : the journal of hernias and abdominal wall surgery
ISSN: 1248-9204
Titre abrégé: Hernia
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9715168
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2022
06 2022
Historique:
received:
02
01
2022
accepted:
09
02
2022
pubmed:
29
3
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
entrez:
28
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level. A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words "Hernia Center" and "University Hernia Center" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score. Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences. Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health literacy is considered the single best predictor of health status. Organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have recommended that the readability of patient education materials not exceed the sixth-grade level. Our study focuses on the readability of self-designated hernia centers websites at both academic and community organizations across the United States to determine their ability to dispense patient information at an appropriate reading level.
METHODS
A search was conducted utilizing the Google search engine. The key words "Hernia Center" and "University Hernia Center" were used to identify links to surgical programs within the United States. The following readability tests were conducted via the program: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score.
RESULTS
Of 96 websites, zero (0%) had fulfilled the recommended reading level in all four tests. The mean test scores for all non-academic centers (n = 50) were as follows: FKGL (11.14 ± 2.68), GFI (14.39 ± 3.07), CLI (9.29 ± 2.48) and SMOG (13.38 ± 2.03). The mean test scores [SK1] for all academic programs (n = 46) were as follows: FKGL (11.7 ± 2.66), GFI (15.01 ± 2.99), CLI (9.34 ± 1.91) and SMOG (13.71 ± 2.02). A one-sample t test was performed to compare the FKGL, GFI, CLI, and SMOG scores for each hernia center to a value of 6.9 (6.9 or less is considered an acceptable reading level) and a p value of 0.001 for all four tests were noted demonstrating statistical significance. The Academic and Community readability scores for both groups were compared to each other with a two-sample t test with a p value of > 0.05 for all four tests and there were no statistically significant differences.
CONCLUSION
Neither Academic nor Community hernia centers met the appropriate reading level of sixth-grade or less. Steps moving forward to improve patient comprehension and/or involving with their care should include appropriate reading level material, identification of a patient with a low literacy level with intervention or additional counseling when appropriate, and the addition of adjunct learning materials such as videos.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35344107
doi: 10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z
pii: 10.1007/s10029-022-02584-z
doi:
Substances chimiques
Smog
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
779-786Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Wechter et al. (1970) Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research. Hernia, Springer-Verlag, https://link.springer.com/article/ https://doi.org/10.1007/10029-011-0879-9
Johnson K, Weiss BD (2008) How long does it take to assess literacy skills in clinical practice? J Am Board Fam Med 21(3):211–214. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2008.03.070217 (PMID: 18467532)
doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2008.03.070217
pubmed: 18467532
DuBay W. The Principles of Readability. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information; 2004
Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago
Weiss BD, Blanchard JS, McGee DL, Hart G, Warren B, Burgoon M, Smith KJ (1994) Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. J Health Care Poor Underserved 5(2):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0272 (PMID: 8043732)
doi: 10.1353/hpu.2010.0272
pubmed: 8043732
Vargas CR et al (2014) Online Patient Resources for Hernia Repair: Analysis of Readability. J Surg Res, U.S. National Library of Medicine, July 2014, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24746256
Goldsmith J et al. (2000) How will the internet change our health system? Health Aff, www.healthaffairs.org/doi/full/ https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.19.1.148
Berland GK et al (2001) Health information on the internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA, US National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182102/
Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level. www.readable.com Accessed 20 Jan 2022
Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA (2016) Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol 3(16):133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-016-0315-0.PMID:27487960;PMCID:PMC4973096
doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0315-0.PMID:27487960;PMCID:PMC4973096
Williamson JM, Martin AG (2010) Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method. Int J Clin Pract 64(13):1824–1831. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02408.x (PMID: 21070533)
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02408.x
pubmed: 21070533
Irwin SC, Lennon DT, Stanley CP, Sheridan GA, Walsh JC (2021) Ankle conFUSION: the quality and readability of information on the internet relating to ankle arthrodesis. Surgeon 19(6):e507–e511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.001 (Epub 2021 Jan 13 PMID: 33451875)
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.001
pubmed: 33451875
Douglas A, Kelly-Campbell RJ (2018) Readability of patient-reported outcome measures in adult audiologic rehabilitation. Am J Audiol 27(2):208–218. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJA-17-0095 (PMID: 29625434)
doi: 10.1044/2018_AJA-17-0095
pubmed: 29625434
Mehta N, Gupta A, Nissan M (2019) All I have learned, i have learned from google: why today’s facial rejuvenation patients are prone to misinformation, and the steps we can take to contend with unreliable information. Facial Plast Surg 35(4):387–392. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1693033 (Epub 2019 Aug 14; PMID: 31412380)
doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1693033
pubmed: 31412380
Lian F, Lu J, White MD, Kogan BA (2020) Readability metrics of provider postoperative handouts in urology. Urology 146:49–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.044 (Epub 2020 Sep 3; PMID: 32890622)
doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.08.044
pubmed: 32890622
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J (1997) The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Public Health 87(6):1027–1030. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.87.6.1027.PMID:9224190;PMCID:PMC1380944
doi: 10.2105/ajph.87.6.1027.PMID:9224190;PMCID:PMC1380944
pubmed: 9224190
pmcid: 1380944
Lee SE, Farzal Z, Ebert CS Jr, Zanation AM (2020) Readability of patient-reported outcome measures for head and neck oncology. Laryngoscope 130(12):2839–2842. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28555 (Epub 2020 Feb 20; PMID: 32078176)
doi: 10.1002/lary.28555
pubmed: 32078176
Agrawal S, Irwin C, Dhillon-Smith RK (2021) An evaluation of the quality of online information on emergency contraception. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 26(4):343–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2021.1887476 (Epub 2021 Mar 10; PMID: 33688778)
doi: 10.1080/13625187.2021.1887476
pubmed: 33688778
Nnamani Silva ON, Ammanuel SG, Segobiano BM, Edwards CS, Hoffman WY (2021) Assessing the readability of online patient education resources related to gynecomastia. Ann Plast Surg 87(2):123–125. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000002620 (PMID: 33346559)
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002620
pubmed: 33346559
Friedland R (1998) Understanding health literacy: new estimates of the cost of inadequate health literacy. National Academy on an Aging Society, Washington
Jindal P, MacDermid JC (2017) Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula. Educ Health (Abingdon) 30(1):84–88. https://doi.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210517 (PMID: 28707643)
doi: 10.4103/1357-6283.210517
Sivanadarajah N, El-Daly I, Mamarelis G, Sohail MZ, Bates P (2017) Informed consent and the readability of the written consent form. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 99(8):645–649. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0188 (Epub 2017 Oct 19. PMID: 29046092; PMCID: PMC5696940)
doi: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0188
pubmed: 29046092
pmcid: 5696940
Pew Research Center (2019) Mobile fact sheet. http://www.pewInternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/ . Accessed 20 Jan 2022
Juzych MS, Randhawa S, Shukairy A, Kaushal P, Gupta A, Shalauta N (2008) Functional health literacy in patients with glaucoma in urban settings. Arch Ophthalmol 126(5):718–724. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.126.5.718 (PMID: 18474786)
doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.5.718
pubmed: 18474786
Freda MC (2005) The readability of American Academy of Pediatrics patient education brochures. J Pediatr Health Care 19:151–156
doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2005.01.013
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (2010) Healthy people 2010. U.S. Department of, Washington
Health and Human Services https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127182/ . Accessed 20 Jan 2022
Ley P, Florio T (1996) The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1:7–28
doi: 10.1080/13548509608400003
Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia
doi: 10.1097/00000446-199612000-00022
Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington
doi: 10.17226/10883
McCray AT (2005) Promoting health literacy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 12(2):152–163. https://doi.org/10.1197/jamia.M1687 (Epub 2004 Nov 23. PMID: 15561782; PMCID: PMC551547)
doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1687
pubmed: 15561782
pmcid: 551547
National Center for Education Statistics (1993) Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the national adult literacy survey. U.S. Dept. of Education, Washington
National Center for Education Statistics (2006) A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. U.S. Dept. of Education, Washington, p 28
Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L (2006) A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 33:352–373
doi: 10.1177/1090198105277329
Fouad MN, Kiefe CI, Bartolucci AA, Burst NM, Ulene V, Harvey MR (1997) A hypertension control program tailored to unskilled and minority workers. Ethn Dis 7(3):191–199 (PMID: 9467701)
pubmed: 9467701
Huang G et al (2015) Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations. JAMA Ophthalmol, U.S. National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25654639
Kasabwala K et al (2013) Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society Patient Education Materials. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol, US National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23044857
Colaco M et al (2013) Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol, US National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23017508 .
Kapoor K et al (2017) Health literacy: readability of ACC/AHA online patient education material. Cardiology, US National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28571004
AlKhalili R et al (2015) Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening. Acad Radiol, US National Library of Medicine, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25488695
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(10):2572–2580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y
doi: 10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y
pubmed: 20496023
pmcid: 3049622
Docimo S Jr, Spaniolas K, Yang J, Talamini MA, Pryor AD (2021) Health care disparity exists among those undergoing emergent hernia repairs in New York State. Hernia 25(3):775–780. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-020-02244-0 (Epub 2020 Jun 3 PMID: 32495046)
doi: 10.1007/s10029-020-02244-0
pubmed: 32495046
Hussey LC (1994) Minimizing effects of low literacy on medication knowledge and compliance among the elderly. Clin Nurs Res 3(2):132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/105477389400300206 (PMID: 7513587)
doi: 10.1177/105477389400300206
pubmed: 7513587
Meade CD, Smith CF (1991) Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns 17:153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0738-3991(91)90017-Y
doi: 10.1016/0738-3991(91)90017-Y
Elhage SA, Thielen ON, Otero J, Huber AT, Grigg TM, Suddreth CE, Monjimbo GA, Prasad T, Augenstein VA, Heniford BT (2021) Perceptions and understanding about mesh and hernia surgery: what do patients really think? Surgery 169(6):1400–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.001 (Epub 2021 Jan 15; PMID: 33461777)
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2020.12.001
pubmed: 33461777
Comparison of School Year Grade Equivalents United States, Great Britain, The Netherlands, and France. https://www.dodea.edu/nonDoD/upload/Comparison_School_Systems_Grade_Equivalents.pdf . Accessed 02 Jun 2022
American School of Milan Grade Equivalents. https://www.asmilan.org/admissions/grade-equivalents . 02 Jun 2022