Abstract
Purpose
To assess the readability of the web-based patient education material provided by the European Association of Urology.
Materials and methods
English patient education materials (PEM) as available in May 2017 were obtained from the EAU website. Each topic was analyzed separately using six well-established readability assessment tools, including Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), SMOG Grade Level (SMOG), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease Formula (FRE) and Fry Readability Graph (FRG).
Results
A total of 17 main topics were identified of which separate basic and in-depth information is provided for 14 topics. Calculation of grade levels (FKGL, SMOG, CLI, GFI) showed readability scores of 7th–13th grade for basic information, 8th–15th grade for in-depth information and 7th–15th grade for single PEM. Median FRE score was 54 points (range 45–65) for basic information and 56 points (41–64) for in-depth information. The FRG as a graphical assessment revealed only 13 valid results with an approximate 8th–17th grade level.
Conclusion
The EAU provides carefully worked out PEM for 17 urological topics. Although improved readability compared to similar analyses was found, a simplification of certain chapters might be helpful to facilitate better patient understanding.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fox S, Duggan M (2013) Health online. Pew internet and American life project; 2013. Jan 15, Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/PIP_HealthOnline.pdf
Mobile health information audience jumps 125 percent in the past year. http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2012/01/mobile- health-information-audience-jumps-125-percent-in-the-past-y e a r. Accessed 20 Mar 2012
Madden M, Fox S (2006) Finding answers online in sickness and in health. Pew internet and amer- ican life project 2006. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org//media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_ Health_Decisions_2006.pdf.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2012
Curtis LM, Wolf MS, Weiss KB et al (2012) The impact of health literacy and socioeconomic status on asthma disparities. J Asthma 49(2):178–183. doi:10.3109/02770903.2011.648297
Freedman RB, Jones SK, Lin A et al (2012) Influence of parental health literacy and dosing responsibility on pediatric glaucoma medication adherence. Arch Ophthalmol 130(3):306–311. doi:10.1001/archopthalmol.2011.1788
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE et al (2011) Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 155(2):97–107. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
Abt D, Warzinek E, Schmid HP et al (2015) Influence of patient education on morbidity caused by ureteral stents. Int J Urol 22(7):679–683. doi:10.1111/iju.12782
https://medlineplus.gov/etr.html. Accessed May 2017
Weiss BD (2007) Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand. Manual for clinicians, 2nd edn. American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, Chicago
Eloy JA, Li S, Kasabwala K et al (2012) Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(5):848–854. doi:10.1177/0194599812456152
Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR et al (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
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
Prabhu AV, Hansberry DR, Agarwal N et al (2016) Radiation oncology and online patient education materials: deviating from NIH and AMA recommendations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 96(3):521–528. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.06.2449
Eltorai AE, Cheatham M, Naqvi SS et al (2016) Is the readability of spine-related patient education material improving?: an assessment of subspecialty websites. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 41(12):1041–1048. doi:10.1097/BRS.0000000000001446
Dalziel K, Leveridge MJ, Steele SS et al (2016) An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions. Canadian Urological Association Journal. 10(5–6):167–170. doi:10.5489/cuaj.3578
http://www.patients.uroweb.org. Accessed May 2017
Koo K, Yap RL (2017) How readable is BPH treatment information on the internet? Assessing barriers to literacy in prostate health. Am J Mens Health 11(2):300–307. doi:10.1177/1557988316680935
Mossanen M, Calvert JK, Wright JL et al (2014) Readability of urologic pathology reports: the need for patient-centered approaches. Urol Oncol. 32(8):1091–1094. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2014.04.011
Horner SD, Surratt D, Juliusson S (2000) Improving readability of patient education materials. J Commun Health Nurs 17(1):15–23. doi:10.1207/S15327655JCHN1701_02
Sheppard ED, Hyde Z, Florence MN et al (2014) Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials. Foot Ankle Int 35(12):1282–1286. doi:10.1177/1071100714550650
Ley P, Florio T (1996) The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1(1):7–28. doi:10.1080/13548509608400003
Kandula S, Zeng-Treitler Q (2008) Creating a gold standard for the readability measurement of health texts. In: AMIA annual symposium proceedings vol 2008, pp 353–357
Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM (1992) The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Educ 7:251–260
Houts PS, Doak CC, Doak LG, Loscalzo MJ (2006) The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 61:173–190
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(10):2572–2580. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y
Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32(3):221–233
Hedman Amy S (2008) Using the SMOG formula to revise a health-related document. Am J Health Educ 39(1):61–64. doi:10.1080/19325037.2008.10599016
McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:8
Coleman M, Liau TL (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:2
Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New York
Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11:4
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank PD Dr. Sabine Güsewell (Clinical Trials Unit of Cantonal Hospital of St. Gallen) for statistical advice.
Authors’ contribution
PB, VZ and DA contributed to project design and coordination, data collection, manuscript writing and editing. MB and DE contributed to data collection and manuscript writing, and HPS contributed to project coordination and manuscript writing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
All 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. For this type of study, no approval by the national research ethic committee and no informed consent were required.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Betschart, P., Zumstein, V., Bentivoglio, M. et al. Readability assessment of online patient education materials provided by the European Association of Urology. Int Urol Nephrol 49, 2111–2117 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1695-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-017-1695-7