A multimetric health literacy analysis of online gender affirmation surgery materials: From facial to genital surgery.
Gender
Gender affirming surgery
Health literacy
Internet
Plastic surgery
Transgender
Journal
Journal of plastic, reconstructive & aesthetic surgery : JPRAS
ISSN: 1878-0539
Titre abrégé: J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101264239
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2023
Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
25
06
2023
revised:
20
09
2023
accepted:
07
10
2023
medline:
5
12
2023
pubmed:
10
11
2023
entrez:
9
11
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
"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).
RESULTS
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37944456
pii: S1748-6815(23)00600-9
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2023.10.067
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Smog
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
449-460Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest None declared.