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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
Pew Internet and American Life Project. Health Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/health-fact-sheet/. Accessed April 27, 2014
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
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
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
Benjamin RM (2012) Improving health by improving health literacy. Public Health Rep 127(1):2–3
Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 53(10):1310–1315
National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). 2003. http://nces.ed.gov/naal. Accessed May 3, 2014
National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy to Read Health Materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed April 27, 2014
Weiss B (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago
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
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
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
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
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
Ferguson T (2000) Online patient-helpers and physicians working together: a new partnership for high quality health care. BMJ 321(7269):1129–1132
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2000. http://www.healthypeople.gov/Document/pdf/uih/2010uih.pdf. Accessed 23 April, 2014
Didie ER, Sarwer DB (2003) Factors that influence the decision to undergo cosmetic breast augmentation surgery. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 12(3):241–253
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
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
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
Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Lee BT (2014) Online patient resources for hernia repair: analysis of readability. J Surg Res 190:144–150
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
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
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
Corresponding author
Additional information
Nicole A. Phillips and Christina R. Vargas: Co-first authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-014-0425-0