Are adult thoracic patient education materials designed with patients in mind?

Patients are increasingly using the internet to obtain health care information. US News and World Report Best Hospital rankings received more than 103 million views in 2021. Considering 21% of thoracic surgery patients are minorities, 27.9% are in the bottom quartile of household income, and 70% have Medicare/Medicaid or no insurance, online patient educational materials (PEMs) should be accessible and written at a level easily understood by majority of patients. We performed a comprehensive analysis of readability of websites containing patient-centered resources across all adult thoracic surgery areas. Online PEMs on thoracic surgical procedures were collected from top 50 hospitals for pulmonology and lung surgery ranked by US News and World Report Best Hospital as of December 1, 2021. Text pertaining to thoracic surgical procedures was collected and divided into 4 procedural genres: esophageal, lung, transplant procedures, and other. Texts were analyzed using OleanderSoftware's Readability Suite through the Raygor readability test. Three hundred seventy-two articles met criteria for analysis. Websites were difficult to read; mean (standard deviation) readability score for all content required a 13.9 (3.6) grade level for comprehension. The mean (standard deviation) readability for esophageal, lung, lung transplant, and other surgeries were 14.5 (3.6), 13.1 (3.6), 11.5 (3.9), and 13.4 (3.7), respectively. Online PEMs required at least a college reading level to comprehend, well exceeding the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association. As digital health becomes increasingly relevant, improving the readability of online PEMs in adult cardiac surgery will facilitate equitable access to high-quality care.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Conflict of Interest Statement The authors reported no conflicts of interest. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest.