Readability Analysis of Online Breast Cancer Surgery Patient Education Materials from National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers Compared with Top Internet Search Results.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
19
06
2023
accepted:
22
08
2023
medline:
8
11
2023
pubmed:
14
9
2023
entrez:
14
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends patient education materials reflect the average reading grade level of the US population. Due to the importance of shared decision-making in breast cancer surgery, this study evaluates the reading level of patient education materials from National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-DCC) compared with top Internet search results. Online materials from NCI-DCC and top Internet search results on breast cancer, staging, surgical options, and pre- and postoperative expectations were analyzed using three validated readability algorithms: Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula, Coleman-Liau index, and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Mean readability was compared across source groups and information subcategories using an unpaired t-test with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Mean readability was compared using a one-way analysis of variance. Mean readability scores from NCI-DCC and Internet groups ranged from a 9th-12th grade level, significantly above the NIH recommended reading level of 6th-7th grade. There was no significant difference between reading levels from the two sources. The discrepancy between actual and recommended reading level was most pronounced for "surgical options" at a 10th-12th grade level from both sources. Patient education materials on breast cancer from both NCI-DCC and top Internet search results were written several reading grade levels higher than the NIH recommendation. Materials should be revised to enhance patient comprehension of breast cancer surgical treatment and guide patients in this important decision-making process to ultimately improve health outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends patient education materials reflect the average reading grade level of the US population. Due to the importance of shared decision-making in breast cancer surgery, this study evaluates the reading level of patient education materials from National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (NCI-DCC) compared with top Internet search results.
METHODS
METHODS
Online materials from NCI-DCC and top Internet search results on breast cancer, staging, surgical options, and pre- and postoperative expectations were analyzed using three validated readability algorithms: Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula, Coleman-Liau index, and Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Mean readability was compared across source groups and information subcategories using an unpaired t-test with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Mean readability was compared using a one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Mean readability scores from NCI-DCC and Internet groups ranged from a 9th-12th grade level, significantly above the NIH recommended reading level of 6th-7th grade. There was no significant difference between reading levels from the two sources. The discrepancy between actual and recommended reading level was most pronounced for "surgical options" at a 10th-12th grade level from both sources.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Patient education materials on breast cancer from both NCI-DCC and top Internet search results were written several reading grade levels higher than the NIH recommendation. Materials should be revised to enhance patient comprehension of breast cancer surgical treatment and guide patients in this important decision-making process to ultimately improve health outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37707665
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-14279-5
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-14279-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
8061-8066Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Rowlands G. Health literacy. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2014;10(7):2130–5.
pubmed: 25424830
pmcid: 4370358
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(2):97–107.
pubmed: 21768583
De Oliveira GS, McCarthy RJ, Wolf MS, Holl J. The impact of health literacy in the care of surgical patients: a qualitative systematic review. BMC Surg. 2015;15(1):86.
pubmed: 26182987
pmcid: 4504415
Rikard RV, Thompson MS, McKinney J, Beauchamp A. Examining health literacy disparities in the United States: a third look at the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):975.
pubmed: 27624540
pmcid: 5022195
Williams DR, Collins C. US Socioeconomic and racial differences in health: patterns and explanations. Ann Rev Sociol. 1995;21(1):349–86.
Jeppesen KM, Coyle JD, Miser WF. Screening questions to predict limited health literacy: a cross-sectional study of patients with diabetes mellitus. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(1):24–31.
pubmed: 19139446
pmcid: 2625834
Gazmararian JA, Baker DW, Williams MV, Parker RM, Scott TL, Green C, et al. Health literacy among Medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. JAMA. 1999;281(6):545–51.
pubmed: 10022111
Ayotte BJ, Allaire JC, Bosworth H. The associations of patient demographic characteristics and health information recall: the mediating role of health literacy. Aging Neuropsychol Cogn. 2009;16(4):419–32.
Sudore RL, Yaffee K, Satterfield S, Harris TB, Mehta KM, Simonsick EM, et al. Limited literacy and mortality in the elderly: the health, aging, and body composition study. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(8):806–12.
pubmed: 16881938
pmcid: 1831586
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics 2023 CA. Cancer J Clin. 2023;73(1):17–48.
Guy GP Jr, Richardson LC. Visit duration for outpatient physician office visits among patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract. 2012;8(3S):2–8.
Cohen RA. Use of the Internet for health information: United States. Natl Center Health Stat. 2011;66:1–8.
Hutchinson N, Baird GL, Garg M. Examining the reading level of internet medical information for common internal medicine diagnoses. Am J Med. 2016;129(6):637–9.
pubmed: 26829438
Powell LE, Andersen ES, Pozez AL. Assessing readability of patient education materials on breast reconstruction by major US academic hospitals as compared with nonacademic sites. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;86(6):610–4.
pubmed: 33234883
Mc Laughlin GH. SMOG Grading-a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12(8):639–46.
Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2013;9(5):503–16.
pubmed: 22835706
Betschart P, Abt D, Schmid HP, Viktorin P, Langenauer J, Zumstein V. Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires. Investig Clin Urol. 2018;59(5):297–304.
pubmed: 30182074
pmcid: 6121017
Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60:283–4.
Jindal P, MacDermid J. Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula. Educ Health. 2017;30(1):84–8.
Swanson CE, Fox H. Validity of readability formulas. J Appl Psychol. 1953;37:114–8.
DuBay WH. The principles of readability. Costa Mesa: Impact Information, 2004.
Grabeel KL, Russomanno J, Oelschlegel S, Tester E, Heidel RE. Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: a comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(1):38–45.
pubmed: 29339932
pmcid: 5764592
Rudd RE, Anderson JE. The health literacy environment of hospitals and health centers. partners for action: making your healthcare facility literacy-friendly. Health and Adult Literacy and Learning Initiative. Harvard School of Public Health. 2006; https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/practice/environmental-barriers/ . Accessed 4/15/2023.
Brangan S. Development of SMOG-Cro readability formula for healthcare communication and patient education. Coll Antropol. 2015;39:11–20.
pubmed: 26040062
Kue J, Klemanski DL, Browning KK. Evaluating readability scores of treatment summaries and cancer survivorship care plans. JCO Oncol Pract. 2021;17(10):615–21.
pubmed: 33555930
Sand-Jecklin K. The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 2007;24(2):119–29.
pubmed: 17563283
Agarwal N, Chaudhari A, Hansberry DR, Tomei KL, Prestigiacomo CJ. A comparative analysis of neurosurgical online education materials to assess patient comprehension. J Clin Neurosci. 2013;20(10):1357–61.
pubmed: 23809099
Ayyaswami V, Padmanabhan D, Patel M, Prabhu AV, Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, et al. A readability analysis of online cardiovascular disease-related health education materials. HLRP: Health Lit Res Pract. 2019;3(2):e75–80.
pmcid: 6489118
Eltorai AEM, Sharma P, Wang J, Daniels AH. Most american academy of orthopaedic surgeons’ online patient education material exceeds average patient reading level. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015;473(4):1181–6.
pubmed: 25475715
Kaye DR, Richardson CR, Ye Z, Herrel LA, Ellimoottil C, Miller DC. Association between patient satisfaction and short-term outcomes after major cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2017;24(12):3486–93. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-6049-2
doi: 10.1245/s10434-017-6049-2
pubmed: 28819930
pmcid: 5780185
Chen Q, Beal EW, Okunrintemi V, Cerier E, Paredes A, Sun S, et al. The association between patient satisfaction and patient-reported health outcomes. J Patient Exp. 2019;6(3):201–9.
pubmed: 31535008
Rademakers J, Delnoji D, Nijman J, de Boer D. Educational inequalities in patient-centred care: patients’ preferences and experiences. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:261.
pubmed: 22900589
pmcid: 3467160
Humphrey KE, Sundberg M, Milliren CE, Graham DA, Landrigan CP. Frequency and nature of communication and handoff failures in medical malpractice claims. J Patient Saf. 2022;18(2):130–7.
pubmed: 35188927
Wong C, Harrison C, Britt H, Henderson J. Patient use of the internet for health information. Aust Fam Phys. 2014;43(12):875–7.
Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):180–5.
pubmed: 11929503
pmcid: 1495021
Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Waligóra J, Mastalerz-Migas A. The internet as a source of health information and services. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2019;1211:1–16.
pubmed: 31273574
van Eenbergen MC, Vromans RD, Boll D, Kil PJM, Vos CM, Krahmer EJ, Mols F, van de Poll-Franse LV. Changes in internet use and wishes of cancer survivors: a comparison between 2005 and 2017. Cancer. 2020;126(2):408–15.
pubmed: 31580497
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, et al. Health information on the internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612–21.
pubmed: 11368735
pmcid: 4182102
Early J, Hernandez A. Digital Disenfranchisement and COVID-19: Broadband internet access as a social determinant of health. Health Promot Pract. 2021;22(5):605–10.
pubmed: 33955266
Miller LM, Bell RA. Online health information seeking: the influence of age, information trustworthiness, and search challenges. J Aging Health. 2012;24(3):525–34.
pubmed: 22187092
Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61(2):173–90.
pubmed: 16122896
Sudore RL, Schillinger D. Interventions to improve care for patients with limited health literacy. J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2009;16(1):20–9.
pubmed: 20046798
pmcid: 2799039
Delp C, Jones J. Communicating information to patients: the use of cartoon illustrations to improve comprehension of instructions. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3(3):264–70.
pubmed: 8673784
DeWalt DA, Broucksou KA, Hawk V, Brach C, Hink A, Rudd R, et al. Developing and testing the health literacy universal precautions toolkit. Nurs Outlook. 2011;59(2):85–94.
pubmed: 21402204
pmcid: 5091930
Norris EM. The constructive use of images in medical teaching: a literature review. JRSM Short Rep. 2012;3(5):33.
pubmed: 22666530
pmcid: 3365786
Dowse R, Ramela T, Barford KL, Browne S. Developing visual images for communicating information aboutantiretroviral side effects to a low-literate population. Afr J AIDS Res. 2010;9(3):213–24.
pubmed: 25860626
Hung YL, Stones C. Visual design in healthcare for low-literate users - A case study of healthcare leaflets for new immigrants in Taiwan. Interacción. 2014.
Smith RM, Anderson ES, Powell LE, Schuth OA, Mountziaris PM, Feldman MJ. It’s not all white: implicit racial bias in imagery used in plastic surgery resident education. J Surg Educ. 2022;79(4):943–9.
pubmed: 35337761
Hirko KA, Rocque G, Reasor E, Taye A, Daly A, Cutress RI, et al. The impact of race and ethnicity in breast cancer-disparities and implications for precision oncology. BMC Med. 2022;20(1):72.
pubmed: 35151316
pmcid: 8841090
Eltorai AE, Ghanian S, Adams CA Jr, Born CT, Daniels AH. Readability of patient education materials on the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine website. Phys Sportsmed. 2014;42(4):125–30.
pubmed: 25419896
Stocco F, Kwan JY, Sood M, Scott DJA, Bailey MA, Coughlin PA. Assessment of available online website and youtube resources for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 2023;S0890–5096(23):00252–62.
Eltorai AE, Ghanian S, Adams CA Jr, Born CT, Daniels AH. Readability of patient education materials on the american association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3(2):e18161.
pubmed: 25147778
pmcid: 4139691