Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Feb 7, 2023
Date Accepted: Jul 4, 2023

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations

Nattam A, Vithala T, Wu TC, Bindhu S, Bond G, Liu H, Thompson A, Wu D

Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46346

DOI: 10.2196/46346

PMID: 37647115

PMCID: 10500363

Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations

  • Anunita Nattam; 
  • Tripura Vithala; 
  • Tzu-Chun Wu; 
  • Shwetha Bindhu; 
  • Gregory Bond; 
  • Hexuan Liu; 
  • Amy Thompson; 
  • Danny Wu

ABSTRACT

Background:

Patient education materials (PEMs) can be vital sources of information for the general population. However, despite American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institute of Health (NIH) recommendations to make PEMs easier to read for patients with low health literacy, they often do not adhere to these recommendations. The readability of online PEMs in the Obstetrics and Gynecology (OB/GYN) field, in particular, has not been thoroughly investigated.

Objective:

The study sampled online OB/GYN PEMs and aimed to examine agreeability across traditional readability measures (RMs), adherence of online PEMs to AMA and NIH recommendations, and whether readability level of online PEMs varied by publication source and medical topic.

Methods:

A total of 1,576 online OB/GYN PEMs were collected via three major search engines. Ninety-three were excluded due to shorter content (less than 100 words), yielding 1,483 PEMs for analysis. Each PEM was scored by four traditional readability measures (TRMs), including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and the Dale-Chall (DCL). The PEMs were categorized based on publication source and medical topic by two research team members. The readability scores of the categories were compared statistically.

Results:

Results indicated that the four TRMs did not agree with each other, leading to the use of an averaged readability (composite) score for comparison. The composite scores across all online PEMs were not normally distributed and had a median at the 11th grade. Governmental PEMs had the lowest readability level amongst source categorization and PEMs about menstruation had the highest readability.

Conclusions:

This study found that online OB/GYN PEMs did not meet the AMA and NIH readability recommendations and would be difficult to read and comprehend for patients with low health literacy. Both findings connected well to the literature. This study highlights the need to improve the readability of OB/GYN PEMs to help patients make informed decisions. While research has been done to create more sophisticated readability measures for medical and health documents. Once validated, these tools need to be utilized by online content creators of health education materials.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Nattam A, Vithala T, Wu TC, Bindhu S, Bond G, Liu H, Thompson A, Wu D

Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e46346

DOI: 10.2196/46346

PMID: 37647115

PMCID: 10500363

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© 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.