A quantitative readability analysis of patient education resources from gastroenterology society websites
Background and aims
The lay public frequently access and rely on online information as a source of their medical knowledge. Many medical societies are unaware of national patient education material guidelines and subsequently fail to meet them. The goal of the present study was to evaluate the readability of patient education materials within the medical field of gastroenterology.
Two hundred fourteen articles pertaining to patient education materials were evaluated with ten well-established readability scales. The articles were available on the websites for the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), and the NIH section National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc analysis were conducted to determine any differences in level of readability between websites.
The 214 articles were written at an 11.8 ± 2.1 grade level with a range of 8.0 to 16.0 grade level. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s HSD post hoc analysis determined the ACG was written at a significantly (p < 0.05) more difficult level when compared to the AGA, the BSG, and the NIDDK websites. No differences were noted when comparing the ASGE website.
None of the patient education materials were written at a level that met national guidelines. If the materials are redrafted, the general American public will likely have a greater understanding of the gastroenterology content.
KeywordsGastroenterology Readability Health literacy Internet Patient education
- 1.Internet & American Life Project (2011) Demographics of internet users. Pew Research Center, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
- 3.National Institutes of Health (2012) How to write easy to read health materials. National Library of Medicine Website. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2012
- 4.Weis BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. Chicago, American Medical Association, American Medical FoundationGoogle Scholar
- 5.US Department of Health and Human Services-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2009) Simply put—a guide for creating easy-to-undestand materials, 3 edn. US Department of Health and Human Services-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ryan C, Bauman K (2016) Educational attainment in the United States: 2015. United States Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf
- 11.Berkman ND, DeWalt, D.A., Pignone, M.P., Sheridan, S.L., Lohr, K.N., Lux, L., Sutton, S.F., Swinson, T., Bonito, A.J. Literacy and health outcomes. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 87 (Prepared by RTI International—University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290–02-0016). 2004(AHRQ Publication No. 04-E007-2. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality)Google Scholar
- 12.National Center for Education Statistics (2006) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. United States Department of Education https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf