Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 1276–1280 | Cite as

Abdominal imaging and patient education resources: enhancing the radiologist–patient relationship through improved communication

  • David R. Hansberry
  • Varun Ayyaswami
  • Anshum Sood
  • Arpan V. Prabhu
  • Nitin Agarwal
  • Sandeep P. Deshmukh



The relative ease of Internet access and its seemingly endless amount of information creates opportunities for Americans to research medical diseases, diagnoses, and treatment plans. Our objective is quantitative evaluation of the readability level of patient education websites, written for the lay public, pertaining to common radiologic diagnostic test, and radiologic diagnoses specific to abdominal imaging.


In October 2015, 10 search terms were entered in the Google search engine, and the top 10 links for each term were collected and independently examined for their readability level using 10 well-validated quantitative readability scales. Search terms included CT abdomen, MRI abdomen, MRI enterography, ultrasound abdomen, X-ray abdomen, cholecystitis, diverticulitis, hepatitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and pancreatitis. Websites not written exclusively for patients were excluded from the analysis.


As a group, the 100 articles were assessed at an 11.7 grade level. Only 2% (2/100) were written at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and American Medical Association (AMA) suggested 3rd to 7th grade level to meet the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. In fact, 49% were written at a level that required a high school education or higher (greater than 12th grade).


With websites like radiologyinfo.org, generating over a million visitors a month, it is that clear there is a public interest in learning about radiology. However, given the discordance between the level of readability of the majority of the Internet articles and the NIH and AMA guidelines noted in this study on abdominal imaging readability, it is likely that many readers do not fully benefit from these resources on abdominal imaging.


Radiology Patient education resources Readability Health literacy Diagnostics 


Compliance with ethical standards


No funding was received for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Statement of informed consent was not applicable since the manuscript does not contain any patient data.


  1. 1.
    Perrin A, Duggan M (2015) Americans’ internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fox S (2011) The social life of health information, 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life ProjectGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kane GC, Fichman RG, Gallaugher J, Glaser J (2009) Community relations 2.0. Harv Bus Rev 87(11):45–50PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rice RE (2006) Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inf 75:8–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krane D (2005) The Harris Poll. 28th July. www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters/healthnews/HI_HealthCareNews2005Vol5_Iss08pdf. Accessed April 2007.
  6. 6.
    Kiley R (2005) Does the internet harm health? Some evidence exists that the internet does harm health. BMJ Br Med J 324(7331):238. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1122149/.
  7. 7.
    Weisbord S, Soule J, Kimmel P (1997) Poison on line- acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the Internet. N Engl J Med 337(12):825–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission TJ. What did the doctor say? Improving health literacy to protect patient safety. Health Care at the Crossroads series.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weiss BD, Schwartzberg JG, Association AM (2007) Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand [manual for clinicians]. Chicago, IL: AMA Foundation, p 2010Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lauder B, Gabel-Jorgensen N (2008) Recent research on health literacy, medication adherence, and patient outcomes. Home Heal Nurse 26(5):254–255Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, et al. (1996) Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res 9(3):139–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cooley ME, Moriarty H, Berger MS, et al. (1995) Patient literacy and the readability of written cancer educational materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 22:1345–1351PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kutner M, Greenburg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2006) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. NCES 2006-483. National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kirsch IS, Jungeblut A, Jenkins L, Kolstad A (2002) Adult literacy in America: a first look at the results of the national adult literacy survey. Natl Cent Educ Stat :178. NCES 1993-275.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Assessment of Adult Literacy. http://nces.ed.gov/naal/.
  16. 16.
    Weis BD (2003) American Medical Foundation. Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. Chicago: American Medical Association.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    How to Write Easy-to-Read Health Materials. MedlinePlus. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed 19 June 2016.
  18. 18.
    Hansberry DR, John A, John E, et al. (2014) A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from Radiologyinfo.Org. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(3):566–575. doi: 10.2214/ajr.13.11223 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Gonzales SF, Baker SR (2014) Are we effectively informing patients? A quantitative analysis of on-line patient education resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(7):1270–1275. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3854 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hansberry DR, Kraus C, Agarwal N, Baker SR, Gonzales SF (2014) Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: a comparative analysis of online patient education resources. Cardiovasc Interv Radiol 37(4):1034–1040. doi: 10.1007/s00270-013-0752-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hansberry DR, Ramchand T, Patel S, et al. (2014) Are we failing to communicate? Internet-based patient education materials and radiation safety. Eur J Radiol 83(9):1698–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prabhu AV, Agarwal N, Clump DA, DE Heron HDR (2016) Radiation oncology and online patient education materials: deviating from NIH and AMA recommendations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys . doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2449 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agarwal N, Chaudhari A, Hansberry DR, et al. (2013) A comparative analysis of neurosurgical online education materials to assess patient comprehension. J Clin Neurosci 20(10):1357–1361. doi: 10.1016/j.jocn.2012.10.047 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Agarwal N, Feghhi DP, Gupta R, et al. (2014) A comparative analysis of minimally invasive and open spine surgery patient education resources. J Neurosurg Spine 21(3):468–474. doi: 10.3171/2014.5.SPINE13600 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hansberry DR, John A, John E, et al. (2014) A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from Radiologyinfo.Org. AJR 20214:566–575. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.11223 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Sabourin V, et al. (2013) A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med 173(13):1257. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Singh PL, Heary RF, Goldstein IM (2014) Quality assessment of spinal cord injury patient education resources. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) . doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000308 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Baker SR (2015) Health literacy and online educational resources: an opportunity to educate patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(1):111–116. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.13086 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    John AM, John ES, Hansberry DR, Thomas PJ, Guo S (2015) Analysis of online patient education materials in pediatric ophthalmology. J AAPOS 19(5):430–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2015.07.286 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kasabwala K, Misra P, Hansberry DR, et al. (2013) Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 3(4):325–333. doi: 10.1002/alr.21097 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prabhu AV, Gupta R, Kim C, et al. (2016) Patient education materials in dermatology: addressing the health literacy needs of patients. JAMA Dermatol . doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.1135 Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hansberry DR, Kraus C, Agarwal N, Baker SR, Gonzales SF (2014) Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: a comparative analysis of online patient education resources. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37(4):1034–1040. doi: 10.1007/s00270-013-0752-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang G, Fang CH, Agarwal N, et al. (2015) Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations. JAMA Ophthalmol 133(4):449. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Colaco M, Svider PF, Agarwal N, et al. (2013) Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol 189(3):1048–1052. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Hansberry DR, Suresh R, Agarwal N, Heary RF, Goldstein IM (2013) Quality assessment of online patient education resources for peripheral neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst 18(1):44–47. doi: 10.1111/jns5.12006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Svider PF, Agarwal N, Choudhry OJ, et al. (2011) Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 34(1):31–35. doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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. doi: 10.1002/lary.23574 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hansberry DR, Ramchand T, Patel S, et al. (2014) Are we failing to communicate? Internet-based patient education materials and radiation safety. Eur J Radiol 83(9):1698–1702. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Shah R, et al. (2014) Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope 124(2):405–412. doi: 10.1002/lary.24261 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(3):466–471. doi: 10.1177/0194599812442783 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Prabhu AV, Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Clump DA, Heron DE (2016) Radiation oncology and online patient education materials: deviating from NIH and AMA recommendations. Int J Radiat Oncol . doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2449 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, et al. (2002) The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 186(5):938–943. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.122091 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Scott TL, Gazmararian JA, Williams M V, Baker DW (2002) Health literacy and preventive health care use among medicare enrollees in a managed care organization. Med Care 40(5). http://journals.lww.com/lww-medicalcare/Fulltext/2002/05000/Health_Literacy_and_Preventive_Health_Care_Use.5.aspx.
  44. 44.
    Howard DH, Gazmararian J, Parker RM (2005) The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Med 118(4):371–377. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.01.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.92.8.1278 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Kincaid JP (1975) Derivation of new readability forumlas: “automated readability index, fog count and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Springfield, VA: National Technical Information ServiceGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Chall JS (1995) Readability revisited: the new Dale–Chall readability formula. Northampton, MA: Brookline Books CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Caylor TG, Fox LC, Ford JP, Sticht JS (1973) Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialties [Technical Report No. 73-5]. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 1973.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11:513–578Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Raygor AL (1977) The raygor readability estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson PD, (ed). Reading: theory, research, and practice—26th yearbook of the national reading conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Coleman TLML (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:283–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Korley FK, Pham JC, Kirsch TD, et al. (2010) Use of advanced radiology during visits to us emergency departments for injury-related conditions, 1998–2007. JAMA 304(13):1465. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1408 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hogan C, Sunshine JH, Schepps B (2001) Hiring of diagnostic radiologists in 1998. Am J Roentgenol 176(2):307–312. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Cypel YS, Sunshine JH (2003) Basic characteristics of radiology practices: results from the American College of Radiology’s 1999 survey. Am J Roentgenol 181(2):341–349. doi: 10.2214/ajr.181.2.1810341 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manuel for clinicians. Chicago, IL: AMA FoundationGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Center for Disease Control Prevention (2009) Simply put—a guide for creating easy to understand materials. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
  61. 61.
    Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53(10):1310–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • David R. Hansberry
    • 1
  • Varun Ayyaswami
    • 2
  • Anshum Sood
    • 2
  • Arpan V. Prabhu
    • 3
  • Nitin Agarwal
    • 4
  • Sandeep P. Deshmukh
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyThomas Jefferson University HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.University of Maryland School of MedicineBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of Radiation OncologyUniversity of Pittsburgh Cancer InstitutePittsburghUSA
  4. 4.Department of Neurological SurgeryUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations