Readability Assessment of Internet-based Patient Education Materials Related to Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening

被引:39
作者
AlKhalili, Rend [1 ]
Shukla, Pratik A. [1 ]
Patel, Ronak H. [1 ]
Sanghvi, Saurin [1 ]
Hubbi, Basil [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Med & Dent New Jersey, New Jersey Med Sch, Dept Radiol, Newark, NJ 07101 USA
关键词
Mammography; readability; Internet-based patient education materials (IPEMs); Flesch-Kincaid grade level; Flesch reading Ease score; Gobbledygook; HEALTH INFORMATION; LITERACY; WEB; RECOMMENDATIONS; QUALITY; PRINT;
D O I
10.1016/j.acra.2014.10.009
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Rationale and Objectives: The US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) recommends that Internet-based patient education materials (IPEMs) be written below the sixth-grade reading level to target the average American adult. This study was designed to determine the readability of IPEMs regarding mammography for breast cancer screening. Materials and Methods: Three-hundred mammography-related Web sites were reviewed for IPEMs. Forty-two IPEMs that met the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct were assessed for readability level with four readability indices that use existing algorithms based on word and sentence length to quantitatively analyze Internet sources for language intricacy including the following: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (Gunning FOG; GFOG). Results were compared to national recommendations, and intergroup analysis was performed. Results: No IPEMs (0%) regarding mammography were written at-or below the sixth-grade reading level, based on FKGL. The mean readability scores were as follows: FRES, 49.04 +/- 10.62; FKGL, 10.71 +/- 2.01; SMOG, 13.33 +/- 1.67; and Gunning FOG, 14.32 +/- 2.18. These scores indicate that the readability of mammography IPEMs is written at a "difficult" level, significantly above the recommended sixth-grade reading level (P < .05) determined by the USDHHS. Conclusions: IPEMs related to mammography are written well above the recommended sixth-grade level and likely reflect other IPEMs in diagnostic radiology.
引用
收藏
页码:290 / 295
页数:6
相关论文
共 31 条
[1]   Readability of patient education materials: Implications for clinical practice [J].
Albright, J ;
deGuzman, C ;
Acebo, P ;
Paiva, D ;
Faulkner, M ;
Swanson, J .
APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH, 1996, 9 (03) :139-143
[2]   Evaluation of internet use by paediatric orthopaedic outpatients and the quality of information available [J].
Aslam, N ;
Bowyer, D ;
Wainwright, A ;
Theologis, T ;
Benson, M .
JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS-PART B, 2005, 14 (02) :129-133
[3]   Health information on the Internet -: Accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish [J].
Berland, GK ;
Elliott, MN ;
Morales, LS ;
Algazy, JI ;
Kravitz, RL ;
Broder, MS ;
Kanouse, DE ;
Muñoz, JA ;
Puyol, JA ;
Lara, M ;
Watkins, KE ;
Yang, H ;
McGlynn, EA .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 285 (20) :2612-2621
[4]  
Committee On Health Literacy, 2004, HLTH LIT PRESCR END
[5]   The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web [J].
D'Alessandro, DM ;
Kingsley, P ;
Johnson-West, J .
ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE, 2001, 155 (07) :807-812
[6]   Attitudes of women in their forties toward the 2009 USPSTF mammogram guidelines: a randomized trial on the effects of media exposure [J].
Davidson, AuTumn S. ;
Liao, Xun ;
Magee, Dale .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 205 (01) :30.e1-30.e7
[7]   Literacy and health outcomes - A systematic review of the literature [J].
DeWalt, DA ;
Berkman, ND ;
Sheridan, S ;
Lohr, KN ;
Pignone, MP .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2004, 19 (12) :1228-1239
[8]  
Doak C.H., 1996, Teaching patients with low literacy skills
[9]   A New Readability Yardstick [J].
Flesch, Rudolf .
JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 1948, 32 (03) :221-233
[10]  
Fox Susannah., 2006, Online health search 2006