Readability Assessment of Online Patient Education Material on Congestive Heart Failure

Background Online health information is being used more ubiquitously by the general population. However, this information typically favors only a small percentage of readers, which can result in suboptimal medical outcomes for patients. Objective The readability of online patient education materials regarding the topic of congestive heart failure was assessed through six readability assessment tools. Methods The search phrase “congestive heart failure” was employed into the search engine Google. Out of the first 100 websites, only 70 were included attending to compliance with selection and exclusion criteria. These were then assessed through six readability assessment tools. Results Only 5 out of 70 websites were within the limits of the recommended sixth-grade readability level. The mean readability scores were as follows: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (9.79), Gunning-Fog Score (11.95), Coleman-Liau Index (15.17), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index (11.39), and the Flesch Reading Ease (48.87). Conclusion Most of the analyzed websites were found to be above the sixth-grade readability level recommendations. Efforts need to be made to better tailor online patient education materials to the general population.

[1]  Mark A. Kutner,et al.  The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006-483. , 2006 .

[2]  Kathleen N. Lohr,et al.  A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2004 .

[3]  P. Grewal,et al.  The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. , 2013, International journal of surgery.

[4]  G. Harry McLaughlin,et al.  SMOG Grading - A New Readability Formula. , 1969 .

[5]  S. Walsh,et al.  Assessing the quality of online information for patients with carotid disease. , 2013, International journal of surgery.

[6]  Alastair K Denniston,et al.  Patient information in Graves' disease and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: readability assessment of online resources. , 2014, Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association.

[7]  Gary L. Kreps,et al.  Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  A. Garg,et al.  Improving on-line information for potential living kidney donors. , 2007, Kidney international.

[9]  M. Coleman,et al.  A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. , 1975 .

[10]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[11]  Quality of Web-based Information for the 10 Most Common Fractures , 2016, Interactive journal of medical research.

[12]  K. Mulhall,et al.  Prevalence of Internet use amongst an elective spinal surgery outpatient population , 2010, European Spine Journal.

[13]  G. Baird,et al.  Examining the Reading Level of Internet Medical Information for Common Internal Medicine Diagnoses. , 2016, The American journal of medicine.

[14]  C. Dube,et al.  Untangling the Web--the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[15]  R. Rudd,et al.  Health and Literacy: A Review of Medical and Public Health Literature , 1999 .

[16]  R. P. Fishburne,et al.  Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel , 1975 .

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

[18]  Lee Rainie,et al.  The online health care revolution: how the web helps americans take better care of themselves , 2000 .

[19]  Theodoros N. Arvanitis,et al.  Use of the Internet by Patients Before and After Cardiac Surgery: An Interdisciplinary Telephone Survey , 2001, Journal of medical Internet research.

[20]  Alastair K Denniston,et al.  Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. , 2013, JAMA ophthalmology.

[21]  R. Gunning.  The Technique of Clear Writing. , 1968 .

[22]  Ahmad Risk,et al.  Review Of Internet Health Information Quality Initiatives , 2001, Journal of medical Internet research.

[23]  D. Molony,et al.  Availability of accessible and high-quality information on the Internet for patients regarding the diagnosis and management of rotator cuff tears. , 2015, Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery.

[24]  S. Goel,et al.  Evaluation of Quality and Readability of Health Information Websites Identified through India's Major Search Engines , 2016, Advances in preventive medicine.

[25]  M. Preisig,et al.  Quality of Web-based information on obsessive compulsive disorder , 2013, Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment.

[26]  David R. Hansberry,et al.  A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[27]  MPH FACS Richard H. Carmona MD.  Health literacy: A national priority , 2007, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[28]  J. Parvizi,et al.  Reliability, Readability and Quality of Online Information about Femoracetabular Impingement. , 2015, The archives of bone and joint surgery.