Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Readability Assessment of Online Patient Abdominoplasty Resources

  • Original Article
  • Experimental/Special Topics
  • Published:
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Limited functional health literacy is recognized as an important contributor to health disparities in the United States. As internet access becomes more universal, there is increasing concern about whether patients with poor or marginal literacy can access understandable healthcare information. As such, the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend that patient information be written at a sixth grade level. This study identifies the most popular online resources for patient information about abdominoplasty and evaluates their readability in the context of average American literacy.

Methods

The two largest internet search engines were queried for “tummy tuck surgery” to simulate a patient search in lay terms. The ten most popular sites common to both search engines were identified, and all relevant articles from the main sites were downloaded. Sponsored results were excluded. Readability analysis of the articles was performed using ten established tests.

Results

Online information about abdominoplasty from the ten most popular publically available websites had an overall average readability of 12th grade. Mean reading grade level scores among tests were: Coleman–Liau 11.9, Flesch–Kincaid 11.4, FORCAST 11.1, Fry 13, Gunning Fog 13.5, New Dale–Chall 11.8, New Fog Count 9.9, Raygor Estimate 12, and SMOG 13.4; Flesch Reading Ease index score was 46.

Conclusions

Online patient resources about abdominoplasty are uniformly above the recommended target readability level and are likely too difficult for many patients to understand. A range of readability identified among websites could allow surgeons to guide patients to more appropriate resources for their literacy skills.

Level of Evidence IV

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Internet User Demographics. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/. Accessed April 27, 2014

  2. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Internet Use over Time. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time/. Accessed April 27, 2014

  3. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Health Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/. Accessed April 27, 2014

  4. Smith P. Literacy and health, the hidden problem that is everywhere. Available at http://www.fammed.wisc.edu/our-department/newsletter/April/may-2006/literacy-health-hidden-problem-everywhere. Accessed April 27, 2014

  5. Parker RM, Kindig DA (2006) Beyond the institute of medicine health literacy report: are the recommendations being taken seriously? J Gen Intern Med 21(8):891–892

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Department of Health and Human Services (US). About Health Literacy [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Health Resources and Services Administration website]. Accessed May 3, 2014

  7. Benjamin RM (2012) Improving health by improving health literacy. Public Health Rep 127(1):2–3

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 53(10):1310–1315

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/naal. Accessed May 3, 2014

  10. National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy to Read Health Materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed April 27, 2014

  11. Weiss B (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  12. The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Cosmetic Surgery National Data Bank Statistics, 2013. Available at http://www.surgery.org/sites/default/files/Stats2013_3.pdf. Accessed April 27, 2014

  13. McMullan M (2006) Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 63(1–2):24–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jejurikar SS, Rovak JM, Kuzon WM Jr et al (2002) Evaluation of plastic surgery information on the internet. Ann Plast Surg 49(5):460–465

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Curry Sturm A, Saleem M, Kelly KM (2009) Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related Web sites. J Genet Couns 18(1):49–59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC (2007) Untangling the Web—The impact of internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 68(3):218–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ferguson T (2000) Online patient-helpers and physicians working together: a new partnership for high quality health care. BMJ 321(7269):1129–1132

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. DeWalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S et al (2004) Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 19(12):1228–1239

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ashraf AA, Colakoglu S, Nguyen JT et al (2013) Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Res 184:665–670

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV et al (2002) Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health 92(8):1278–1283

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Weiss BD, Blanchard JS, McGee DL et al (1994) Illiteracy among medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. J Health Care Poor Underserved 5(2):99–111

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paik AM, Mady LJ, Sood A, Eloy JA, Lee ES (2014) A look inside the courtroom: an analysis of 292 cosmetic breast surgery medical malpractice cases. Aesthet Surg J 34(1):79–86

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Paik AM, Mady LJ, Sood A, Lee ES (2014) Beyond the operating room: a look at legal liability in body contouring procedures. Aesthet Surg J 34(1):106–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Patel AJ, Morrison CM (2013) Opportunities to reduce plastic surgery claims through an analysis of complaints data. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 66(4):455–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hong P, Makdessian AS, Ellis DA, Taylor SM (2009) Informed consent in rhinoplasty: prospective randomized study of risk recall in patients who are given written disclosure of risks versus traditional oral discussion groups. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 38(3):369–374

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ et al (2002) Patient’s use of the internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17(3):180–185

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2000. http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf. Accessed 23 April, 2014

  28. Didie ER, Sarwer DB (2003) Factors that influence the decision to undergo cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 12(3):241–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Javo IM, Sorlie T (2010) Psychosocial predictors of an interest in cosmetic surgery among young Norwegian women: a population-based study. Plast Reconstr Surg 126(2):687–688 author reply 688

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Ganor O, Lee BT (2014) Readability of online patient resources for the operative treatment of breast cancer. Surgery 156:311–318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Vargas CR, Koolen PGL, Chuang DJ et al (2014) Online patient resources for breast reconstruction: an analysis of readability. Plast Reconstr Surg 134:406–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Lee BT (2014) Online patient resources for hernia repair: analysis of readability. J Surg Res 190:144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Misra P, Agarwal N, Kasabwala K et al (2013) Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Laryngoscope 123(1):90–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bouton ME, Shirah GR, Nodora J et al (2012) Implementation of educational video improves patient understanding of basic breast cancer concepts in an undereducated county hospital population. J Surg Oncol 105(1):48–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial disclosures and report no conflicts of interest with any of the companies or products mentioned in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bernard T. Lee.

Additional information

Nicole A. Phillips and Christina R. Vargas: Co-first authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Phillips, N.A., Vargas, C.R., Chuang, D.J. et al. Readability Assessment of Online Patient Abdominoplasty Resources. Aesth Plast Surg 39, 147–153 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0425-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0425-0

Keywords

Navigation