Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors

  • Clinical Study
  • Published:
Journal of Neuro-Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Readability is an important consideration in assessing healthcare-related literature. In order for a source of information to be the most beneficial to patients, it should be written at a level appropriate for the audience. The National Institute of Health recommends that health literature be written at a maximum level of sixth grade. This is not uniformly found in current health literature, putting patients with lower reading levels at a disadvantage. In February 2012, healthcare-oriented education resources were retrieved from websites obtained using the Google search phrase skull base tumors. Of the first 25 consecutive, unique website hits, 18 websites were found to contain information for patients. Ten different assessment scales were utilized to assess the readability of the patient-specific web pages. Patient-oriented material found online for skull base tumors was written at a significantly higher level than the reading level of the average US patient. The average reading level of this material was found to be at a minimum of eleventh grade across all ten scales. Health related material related to skull base tumors available through the internet can be improved to reach a larger audience without sacrificing the necessary information. Revisions of this material can provide significant benefit for average patients and improve their health care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adkins AD, Elkins E, Singh NN (2001) Readability of NIMH easy-to-read patient education materials. J Child Fam Stud 10:279–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, Paiva D, Faulkner M, Swanson J (1996) Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res 9:139–143

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2572–2580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J (1997) The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Public Health 87:1027–1030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown JB, Weston WW, Stewart MA (1989) Patient-centred interviewing part II: finding common ground. Can Fam Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien 35:153–157

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Buss R, Ratliff JL, Irion JC (1985) Effects of instruction on the use of story structure in comprehension of narrative discourse. Natl Read Conf Yearb 34:55–58

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cherla DV, Sanghvi S, Choudhry OJ, Liu JK, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. doi:10.1002/lary.23309

  9. Coleman M, Liau TL (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J (2001) The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155:807–812

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R (1996) Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Couns 27:123–134

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Estrada CA, Hryniewicz M, Higgs VB, Collins C, Bryd JC (2000) Anticoagulant patient information material is written at high readability levels. Stroke 31:2966–2970

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356–371

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Flesch R (1979) How to write plain English: a book for lawyers and consumers, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Fox S (2011) The social life of health information. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project

  17. Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11:4

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hendrickson RL, Huebner CE, Riedy CA (2006) Readability of pediatric health materials for preventive dental care. BMC Oral Health 6:14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Internet and American Life Project (2011) Demographics of internet users. Pew Research Center, USA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Caylor JS, Sticht TG, Fox LC, Ford JP (1973) Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialties [technical report no. 73-5]. Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, Virginia

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jackson RH, Davis TC, Bairnsfather LE, George RB, Crouch MA, Gault H (1991) Patient reading ability: an overlooked problem in health care. South Med J 84:1172–1175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 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. doi:10.1177/0194599812442783

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

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lee PP (1999) Why literacy matters. Links between reading ability and health. Arch Ophthalmol 117:100–103

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:8

    Google Scholar 

  27. McMullan M (2006) Patients using the internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 63:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Institutes of Health (2009) How to write easy to read health materials, National Library of Medicine website, updated 11 July 2011

  29. Parikh NS, Parker RM, Nurss JR, Baker DW, Williams MV (1996) Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns 27:33–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Patel PP, Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ciminello FS (2011) Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions. J Craniofac Surg 22:1179–1182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Raygor AL (1977) The Raygor readability estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson PD (ed) Reading: theory, research and practice, National Reading Conference, Clemson, SC, pp 259–263

    Google Scholar 

  32. Roter DL (1977) Patient participation in the patient-provider interaction: the effects of patient question asking on the quality of interaction, satisfaction and compliance. Health Educ Monogr 5:281–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Sabharwal S, Badarudeen S, Unes Kunju S (2008) Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:1245–1250

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sand-Jecklin K (2007) The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs 24:119–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Sanghvi S, Cherla DV, Shukla PA, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope (in press)

  36. Schmitt PJ, Prestigiacomo CJ (2011) Readability of neurosurgery-related patient education materials provided by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons and the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health. World Neurosurg. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2011.09.007

  37. Simpson M, Buckman R, Stewart M, Maguire P, Lipkin M, Novack D et al (1991) Doctor–patient communication: the Toronto consensus statement. BMJ 303:1385–1387

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Singh J (2003) Research briefs reading grade level and readability of printed cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 30:867–870

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James K. Liu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Misra, P., Kasabwala, K., Agarwal, N. et al. Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors. J Neurooncol 109, 573–580 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-012-0930-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-012-0930-4

Keywords

Navigation