Skip to main content

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

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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).

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Perrin A, Duggan M (2015) Americans’ internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center.

  2. 2.

    Fox S (2011) The social life of health information, 2011. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Kane GC, Fichman RG, Gallaugher J, Glaser J (2009) Community relations 2.0. Harv Bus Rev 87(11):45–50

    PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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):825–827

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Commission TJ. What did the doctor say? Improving health literacy to protect patient safety. Health Care at the Crossroads series.

  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 2010

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Lauder B, Gabel-Jorgensen N (2008) Recent research on health literacy, medication adherence, and patient outcomes. Home Heal Nurse 26(5):254–255

    Google 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):139–143

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 22:1345–1351

    CAS  PubMed  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221–233

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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 Service

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Chall JS (1995) Readability revisited: the new Dale–Chall readability formula. Northampton, MA: Brookline Books Cambridge

    Google 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.

  50. 50.

    Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11:513–578

    Google 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.

  52. 52.

    McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Coleman TLML (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:283–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill

    Google 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

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google 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

    CAS  Article  Google 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Weiss BD (2003) Health literacy: a manuel for clinicians. Chicago, IL: AMA Foundation

    Google 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.

  60. 60.

    RadiologyInfo.org. Reaches one million monthly visitors. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/eNews/Issue-13-March-2016/RadiologyInfo-Reaches-1-Million-Visitors.Published. 2016.

  61. 61.

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David R. Hansberry.

Ethics declarations

Funding

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hansberry, D.R., Ayyaswami, V., Sood, A. et al. Abdominal imaging and patient education resources: enhancing the radiologist–patient relationship through improved communication. Abdom Radiol 42, 1276–1280 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0977-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Radiology
  • Patient education resources
  • Readability
  • Health literacy
  • Diagnostics