Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy

Accessibility is one of six quality criteria articulated by the European Commission in its code of conduct for health websites. Readability plays an integral part in determining a website's accessibility. Health information that is hard to read may remain inaccessible to people with low health literacy. This study aimed to calculate the readability of websites on various causes of disease. The names of 22 health conditions were entered into five search engines, and the readability of the first 10 results for each search were evaluated using Gunning FOG, SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease tests (n = 352). Readability was stratified and assessed by search term, search term complexity, top-level domain and paragraph position. The mean reading grade was 12.30, and the mean FRE was 46.08, scores considered ‘difficult’. Websites on certain topics were found to be even harder to read than average. Where conditions had multiple names, searching for the simplest one led to the most readable results. Websites with .gov and .nhs TLDs were the most readable while .edu sites were the least. Within texts, a trend of increasing difficulty was found with concluding paragraphs being the hardest to read. It was also found that some of the most frequent search results (such as Wikipedia pages) were amongst the hardest to read. Health professionals, with the help of public and specialised libraries, need to create and direct patients towards high-quality, plain language health information in multiple languages.

[1]  Nadine Höchstötter,et al.  Standard parameters for searching behaviour in search engines and their empirical evaluation , 2009, J. Inf. Sci..

[2]  Su-I Hou,et al.  Health Literacy, eHealth, and Communication: Putting the Consumer First , 2010 .

[3]  Cathy D. Meade,et al.  Readability Formulas: Cautions and Criteria , 1991 .

[4]  N. Cotugna,et al.  EVALUATION OF LITERACY LEVEL OF PATIENT EDUCATION PAGES IN HEALTH-RELATED JOURNALS , 2005, Journal of Community Health.

[5]  eEurope 2002: Quality Criteria for Health related Websites , 2002, Journal of medical Internet research.

[6]  Mohan Jyoti Dutta,et al.  Understanding Health Literacy for Strategic Health Marketing: eHealth Literacy, Health Disparities, and the Digital Divide , 2008, Health marketing quarterly.

[7]  P B Mosenthal,et al.  A NEW MEASURE FOR ASSESSING DOCUMENT COMPLEXITY: THE P MOSE/I KIRSCH DOCUMENT READABILITY FORMULA , 1998 .

[8]  S. Sabharwal,et al.  Readability of Online Patient Education Materials From the AAOS Web Site , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[9]  Improvement,et al.  Adult literacy in America : a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey , 1993 .

[10]  Andrew Pleasant,et al.  Advancing Health Literacy: A Framework for Understanding and Action , 2006 .

[11]  L. Hernandez.  Health literacy, eHealth, and communication : putting the consumer first : workshop summary , 2009 .

[12]  T. Davis,et al.  Health Literacy and Cancer Communication , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[13]  Don Nutbeam,et al.  Health promotion glossary. , 1986, Health promotion.

[14]  C. Chronaki,et al.  European citizens' use of E-health services: A study of seven countries , 2007, BMC public health.

[15]  John Sabatini,et al.  Basic Reading Skills and the Literacy of America's Least Literate Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Supplemental Studies. NCES 2009-481. , 2009 .

[16]  D B Friedman,et al.  Health literacy and the World Wide Web: Comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet , 2006, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[17]  Marcy M. Allen,et al.  The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A New Look At Internet Access and the Digital Divide, Amanda Lenhart (Ed.). The Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC (2003) , 2005, Gov. Inf. Q..

[18]  Daniela B. Friedman,et al.  A Systematic Review of Readability and Comprehension Instruments Used for Print and Web-Based Cancer Information , 2006, Health education & behavior : the official publication of the Society for Public Health Education.

[19]  J. Albright,et al.  Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. , 1996, Applied nursing research : ANR.

[20]  C. Chronaki,et al.  eHealth Trends in Europe 2005-2007: A Population-Based Survey , 2008, Journal of medical Internet research.

[21]  Richard A Steinman,et al.  Online Health Information and Low-Literacy African Americans , 2004, Journal of medical Internet research.

[22]  Terri Ades,et al.  Health Literacy in the Information Age: Communicating Cancer Information to Patients and Families , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[23]  D W Baker,et al.  The association between age and health literacy among elderly persons. , 2000, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[24]  L. G. Doak,et al.  Teaching Patients With Low Literacy Skills , 1985 .

[25]  Joan M Kiel,et al.  The digital divide: Internet and e-mail use by the elderly , 2005, Medical informatics and the Internet in medicine.

[26]  T. Volsko,et al.  Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. , 2008, Respiratory care.

[27]  D. Nutbeam,et al.  Health promotion glossary (1998) , 1998 .

[28]  Robin Room,et al.  Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. , 2005, Drug and alcohol review.