Analysis of Comprehensibility of Patient Information Regarding Complex Craniofacial Conditions
Authors:
- 1 July 2011
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Journal of Craniofacial Surgery
- Vol. 22 (4) , 1179-1182
Abstract
Purpose: Health care consumers are increasingly turning to the Internet for information regarding medical and surgical procedures. When an elective procedure is under consideration, the Internet is often the first resource used by a patient. Caregivers of craniofacial patients are typically overwhelmed during the surgical planning process. A firm understanding of craniofacial condition and the associated procedures is crucial to obtain satisfactory outcomes. Furthermore, health care providers are increasingly referring their patients to on-line sources of patient education material. Currently, the National Institutes of Health suggests the information be at the fourth- to sixth-grade reading level to maximize comprehension. Much of the information available regarding health care targeted at patients is written at a 10th-grade reading level or higher. The purpose of this study was to evaluate readily available on-line patient education information for readability; being aware of this information will aid craniofacial surgeons in appropriately educating their patients. Methods: Texts were extracted from commonly used craniofacial educational Web sites regarding reconstructive procedures. Three objective and accepted methods (SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid, and Dale-Chall) were used to assess readability of each condition and its corresponding procedure's text. Results: The results from all 3 of the methods used were higher than the recommended seventh-grade reading level. The mean reading level for eMedicine was 13.8, 15.2, and 15 for the Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, and Dale-Chall methods, respectively. Likewise, the mean reading levels for FACES were 7.5, 10.7, and 8.3; and for World Craniofacial Foundation, the levels were 11.9, 13.8, and 13. Conclusions: Patient education and understanding is a critical factor in planning for surgery; this is especially true of reconstructive craniofacial procedures. Craniofacial surgery is a diverse field, and its surgeons have correspondingly diverse practices. It is up to each individual surgeon to determine what is appropriate for his or her patients. Our results show that on-line educational material is at a level that is substantially higher than the national reading average. The ultimate impact of this fact will vary from practice to practice, but all surgeons should be aware of the possible conflicts between information distributed and the patient's ability to comprehend that information. This may assist surgeons in preoperative evaluations by discussing conditions with more level appropriate means.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Readability of H1N1 Information From the CDC Web SiteThe Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, 2010
- Readability of Patient Information Regarding Breast Cancer Prevention from the Web site of the National Cancer InstituteJournal of Cancer Education, 2010
- Suitability and readability assessment of educational print resources related to physical activity: Implications and recommendations for practicePatient Education and Counseling, 2008
- Analysis of stroke patients’ and carers’ reading ability and the content and design of written materials: Recommendations for improving written stroke informationPatient Education and Counseling, 2006
- The Readability of Pediatric Patient Education Materials on the World Wide WebArchives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 2001
- Anticoagulant Patient Information Material Is Written at High Readability LevelsStroke, 2000
- Urology and the Internet: an evaluation of Internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topicsBJU International, 2000
- Accessibility of information on the webNature, 1999
- Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?Journal of Clinical Oncology, 1994
- A new readability yardstick.Journal of Applied Psychology, 1948