Assessment of the Readability of the Online Patient Education Materials of Intensive and Critical Care Societies.

Volkan Hanci, Büşra Otlu, Ali Salih Biyikoğlu
Author Information
  1. Volkan Hanci: Anesthesiology and Reanimation Department, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Tukey.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the readability of patient education materials (PEMs) on websites of intensive and critical care societies.
DATA SOURCES: 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.
SETTING: Cross-sectional observational, internet-based, website, PEMs, readability study.
STUDY SELECTION: The readability of the PEMs available on societies' sites was evaluated.
DATA EXTRACTION: 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).
DATA SYNTHESIS: 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).
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

References

  1. Marshall JC, Bosco L, Adhikari NK, et al.: What is an intensive care unit? A report of the task force of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine. J Crit Care. 2017; 37:270–276
  2. Crawford AM, Shiferaw AA, Ntambwe P, et al.: Global critical care: A call to action. Crit Care. 2023; 27:28
  3. Scott P, Thomson P, Shepherd A: Families of patients in ICU: A scoping review of their needs and satisfaction with care. Nurs Open. 2019; 6:698–712
  4. Alsharari AF: The needs of family members of patients admitted to the intensive care unit. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2019; 13:465–473
  5. Gaeeni M, Farahani AM, Seyedfatemi N, et al.: Informational support to family members of intensive care unit patients: The perspectives of families and nurses. Glob J Health Sci. 2014; 7:8–19
  6. Han A, Carayannopoulos AG: Readability of patient education materials in physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R): A comparative cross-sectional study. PMR. 2020; 12:368–373
  7. Ozduran E, Hanci V: Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease. Reumatismo. 2022; 74:49–60
  8. Hanci V, Sari NZ, Sinlik E, et al.: Evaluation of the readability of the internet-based patient education materials related to sepsis. Gazi Medical J. 2022; 34:360–364
  9. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, et al.: A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010; 40:292–296
  10. Sharma AN, Martin B, Shive M, et al.: The readability of online patient information about laser resurfacing therapy. Dermatol Online J. 2020; 26:13030/qt5t9882ct
  11. Ozduran E, Hanci V: Evaluating the readability, quality, and reliability of online information on Sjogren’s syndrome. Indian J Rheumatol. 2023; 18:16–25
  12. Guo WJ, Wang WK, Xu D, et al.: Evaluating the quality, content, and readability of online resources for failed back spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019; 44:494–502
  13. Ozduran E, Büyükçoban S: Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-COVID pain. PeerJ. 2022; 10:e13686
  14. Erkin Y, Hanci V, Ozduran E: Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on transcutaneuous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS). Medicine (Baltim). 2023; 102:e33529
  15. Boztas N, Omur D, Ozbilgin S, et al.: Readability of internet-sourced patient education material related to “labour analgesia”. Medicine (Baltim). 2017; 96:e8526
  16. Kocyigit BF, Koca TT, Akaltun MS: Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019; 38:3269–3274
  17. Bagcier F, Yurdakul OV, Temel MH: Quality and readability of online information on myofascial pain syndrome. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2021; 25:61–66
  18. Ahmadi O, Louw J, Leinonen H, et al.: Glioblastoma: Assessment of the readability and reliability of online information. Br J Neurosurg. 2021; 35:551–554
  19. Kelly WNE, Murray KE, McCarthy C, et al.: An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19. Health Technol (Berl). 2021; 11:1093–1099
  20. Halboub E, Al-Ak’hali MS, Al-Mekhlafi HM, et al.: Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: An infodemiological study. BMC Public Health. 2021; 21:151
  21. Goldenberg BT, Schairer WW, Dekker TJ, et al.: Online resources for rotator cuff repair: What are patients reading? Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2019; 1:e85–e92
  22. Arif N, Ghezzi P: Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast. 2018; 37:6–12
  23. Misra AR, Oermann MH, Teague MS, et al.: An evaluation of websites offering caregiver education for tracheostomy and home mechanical ventilation. J Pediatr Nurs. 2021; 56:64–69
  24. Sabharwal S, Badarudeen S, Kunju US: Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008; 466:1245–1250
  25. Wang SW, Capo JT, Orillaza N: Readability and comprehensibility of patient education material in hand-related web sites. J Hand Surg Am. 2009; 34:1308–1315
  26. Rooney MK, Sachdev S, Byun J, et al.: Readability of patient education materials in radiation oncology—are we improving? Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019; 9:435–440
  27. Kang R, Lipner S: Evaluation of onychomycosis information on the internet. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019; 18:484–487
  28. Abu-Heija AA, Shatta M, Ajam M, et al.: Quantitative readability assessment of the internal medicine online patient information on Annals.org. Cureus. 2019; 11:e4184
  29. Fahimuddin FZ, Sidhu S, Agrawal A: Reading level of online patient education materials from major obstetrics and gynecology societies. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133:987–993
  30. Pashkova A, Bangalore R, Tan C, et al.: Assessing the readability of anesthesia-related patient education materials from major anesthesiology organizations. Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022:3284199
  31. Wrigley Kelly NE, Murray KE, McCarthy C, et al.: An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19. Health Technol (Berl). 2021; 11:1093–1099
  32. Killip SC, Kwong N, MacDermid JC, et al.: The quality, readability, completeness, and accuracy of PTSD websites for firefighters. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17:7629

MeSH Term

Humans
Comprehension
Cross-Sectional Studies
Patient Education as Topic
Reading
Smog
United States

Chemicals

Smog

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0readabilityPEMssocietiesintensivecriticalcare10studyDATAIntensiveCare11sixth-gradelevelCriticalevaluatedFRESFKGLSMOGGFOGPEMdifficultmeanresultsrecommendedp<0OBJECTIVES:aimedevaluatepatienteducationmaterialswebsitesSOURCES:WebsitesmembersWorldFederationEuropeanSocietyMedicineSETTING:Cross-sectionalobservationalinternet-basedwebsiteSTUDYSELECTION:availablesocieties'sitesEXTRACTION:formulasusedFleschReadingEaseScoreFlesch-KincaidGradeLevelSimpleMeasureGobbledygookGunningFogSYNTHESIS:Onehundredtwenty-sevendifferentincludedanalysis584885-637719893-117211-1187yearsrespectivelyscore127337-1415formulasignificantlyhigher001individuallyaccording05CONCLUSIONS:ComparedAmericanMedicalAssociationNationalInstitutesHealthrelativelyhighpreparedattentionrecommendationsAssessmentReadabilityOnlinePatientEducationMaterialsSocieties

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)