Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information.

IMPORTANCE Patients increasingly use the Internet to access information related to their disease, but poor health literacy is known to impact negatively on medical outcomes. Multiple agencies have recommended that patient-oriented literature be written at a fourth- to sixth-grade (9-12 years of age) reading level to assist understanding. The readability of online patient-oriented materials related to ophthalmic diagnoses is not yet known. OBJECTIVE To assess the readability of online literature specifically for a range of ophthalmic conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING Body text of the top 10 patient-oriented websites for 16 different ophthalmic diagnoses, covering the full range of ophthalmic subspecialties, was analyzed for readability, source (United Kingdom vs non-United Kingdom, not for profit vs commercial), and appropriateness for sight-impaired readers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Four validated readability formulas were used: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Data were compared with the Mann-Whitney test (for 2 groups) and Kruskal-Wallis test (for more than 2 groups) and correlation was assessed by the Spearman r. RESULTS None of the 160 webpages had readability scores within published guidelines, with 83% assessed as being of "difficult" readability. Not-for-profit webpages were of significantly greater length than commercial webpages (P = .02) and UK-based webpages had slightly superior readability scores compared with those of non-UK webpages (P = .004 to P < .001, depending on the readability formula used). Of all webpages evaluated, only 34% included facility to adjust text size to assist visually impaired readers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess readability of patient-focused webpages specifically for a range of ophthalmic diagnoses. In keeping with previous studies in other medical conditions, we determined that readability scores were inferior to those recommended, irrespective of the measure used. Although readability is only one aspect of how well a patient-oriented webpage may be comprehended, we recommend the use of readability scoring when producing such resources in the future. Minimum readability policies and inclusion of facilities within webpages to maximize viewing potential for visually impaired readers are important to ensure that online ophthalmic patient information is accessible to the broadest audience possible.

[1]  J. Eloy,et al.  Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors , 2012, Journal of Neuro-Oncology.

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

[3]  L. Sansom,et al.  Do Internet interventions for consumers cause more harm than good? A systematic review , 2002, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[4]  E. N. Martins,et al.  Evaluation of internet websites about retinopathy of prematurity patient education , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[5]  Increased readability improves the comprehension of written information for patients with skin disease. , 1988, Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

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

[7]  J. Eloy,et al.  Readability assessment of online thyroid surgery patient education materials , 2012, Head & neck.

[8]  John O. Elliott,et al.  A health literacy assessment of the epilepsy.com website , 2009, Seizure.

[9]  M. Groppe,et al.  Internet use by ophthalmology patients , 2010, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[10]  Maged N Kamel Boulos British internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable? , 2005, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[11]  David Toll,et al.  How Do You Improve Compliance? , 2005, Pediatrics.

[12]  T. Davis,et al.  The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. , 1990, The Journal of family practice.

[13]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review , 1999, BMJ.

[14]  Brittain H Tulbert,et al.  Readability of Patient-oriented Online Dermatology Resources. , 2011, The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology.

[15]  M. McMullan Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[16]  Frank S. Ciminello,et al.  Analysis of Comprehensibility of Patient Information Regarding Complex Craniofacial Conditions , 2011, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[17]  C. Rennie,et al.  Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet? , 2007, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[18]  M. Setzen,et al.  Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials , 2013, International forum of allergy & rhinology.

[19]  P. Fitzsimmons,et al.  A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information. , 2010, The journal of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

[20]  E. Coiera,et al.  The Internet's challenge to health care provision , 1996, BMJ.

[21]  Alon Kahana,et al.  Ophthalmology on the internet: what do our patients find? , 2004, Archives of ophthalmology.