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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adkins AD, Elkins E, Singh NN (2001) Readability of NIMH easy-to-read patient education materials. J Child Fam Stud 10:279–284
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
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2572–2580
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
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
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
Chall JS (1995) Readability revisited: the new Dale–Chall readability formula. Brookline Books, Cambridge
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
Coleman M, Liau TL (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:2
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
Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R (1996) Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Couns 27:123–134
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
Eysenbach G (2003) The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 53:356–371
Flesch R (1979) How to write plain English: a book for lawyers and consumers, 1st edn. Harper & Row, New York
Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233
Fox S (2011) The social life of health information. Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project
Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11:4
Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New York
Hendrickson RL, Huebner CE, Riedy CA (2006) Readability of pediatric health materials for preventive dental care. BMC Oral Health 6:14
Internet and American Life Project (2011) Demographics of internet users. Pew Research Center, USA
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
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
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
Lauder B, Gabel-Jorgensen N (2008) Recent research on health literacy, medication adherence, and patient outcomes. Home Healthc Nurse 26:5
Lee PP (1999) Why literacy matters. Links between reading ability and health. Arch Ophthalmol 117:100–103
McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:8
McMullan M (2006) Patients using the internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 63:4
National Institutes of Health (2009) How to write easy to read health materials, National Library of Medicine website, updated 11 July 2011
Parikh NS, Parker RM, Nurss JR, Baker DW, Williams MV (1996) Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns 27:33–39
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
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
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
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
Sand-Jecklin K (2007) The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs 24:119–129
Sanghvi S, Cherla DV, Shukla PA, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope (in press)
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
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
Singh J (2003) Research briefs reading grade level and readability of printed cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 30:867–870
Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53:1310–1315
Conflict of interest
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-012-0930-4