Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Diabetes
Date Submitted: Jan 16, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: Jan 16, 2021 - Mar 13, 2021
Date Accepted: Oct 16, 2021
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Readability and Quality Assessment of Internet-Based Patient Education Materials Regarding Diabetic Foot Ulcers
ABSTRACT
Background:
While diabetic foot ulcers are a common complication of diabetes, little is known about the content and readability of online patient education materials for diabetic foot ulcers. The recommended reading grade level for these materials is grade 6th - 8th.
Objective:
To evaluate the quality and readability of online patient education materials on diabetic foot ulcers.
Methods:
A Google search was performed using four different search terms related to DFUs. Six different tools were used to assess the readability of included patient education materials. These included the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch-Reading Ease Score, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. The DISCERN tool was used to assess quality and reliability
Results:
Fourty-one online patient education materials were included. The average Flesch-Reading Ease score for all patient education materials was 63.43±14.21, indicating a standard difficulty level of reading. The average reading grade level was 9.33±2.6, which is higher than the recommended reading level for patient education materials. The mean DISCERN score was 45.66±3.34 and 27% (11/41) of articles had DISCERN scores less than 39, corresponding to poor or very poor quality.
Conclusions:
The majority of online patient education materials on diabetic foot ulcers are written above the recommended reading levels and have significant deficiencies in terms of their quality and reliability. Clinicians and patients should be aware of the shortcomings of these resources and consider the impact they may have on patients’ self-management.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.