Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

To assess the readability of online tracheostomy care resources.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting:

Academic center.

Subjects and Methods

A Google search was performed for “tracheostomy care” in January 2014. The top 50 results were categorized into major versus minor websites and patient-oriented versus professional-oriented resources. These websites were evaluated with the following readability tools: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (GFOG).

Results

Readability scores for the websites were FRES 57.21 ± 16.71 (possible range = 0-100), FKGL 8.33 ± 2.84 (possible range = 3-12), SMOG 11.25 ± 2.49 (possible range = 3-19), and GFOG 11.43 ± 4.07 (possible range = 3-19). There was no significant difference in all 4 readability scores between major (n = 41) and minor (n = 9) websites. Professional-oriented websites (n = 19) had the following readability scores: FRES 40.77 ± 11.69, FKGL 10.93 ± 2.48, SMOG 13.29 ± 2.32, and GFOG 14.91 ± 3.98. Patient-oriented websites (n = 31) had the following readability scores: FRES 67.29 ± 9.91, FKGL 6.73 ± 1.61, SMOG 10.01 ± 1.64, and GFOG 9.30 ± 2.27. Professional-oriented websites had more difficult readability scores than patient-oriented websites for FRES (P < .00), FKGL (P < .00), SMOG (P < .00), and GFOG (P < .00).

Conclusion

Online tracheostomy care resources were written at a level more difficult than the recommended fourth- to sixth-grade level for written health information. There was no significant difference in readability between major and minor websites. Professional-oriented websites were more difficult to read than patient-oriented websites.

Keywords

tracheostomy patient education Internet readability Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Flesch Reading Ease Score

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Frost

EAM

. Tracing the tracheostomy. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1976;85:618-621.

Mitchell

Hussey

Setzen

. Clinical consensus statement: tracheostomy care. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148:6-20.

Crane

. Patient comprehension of doctor-patient instructions at discharge from emergency department. J Emerg Med. 1997;15:1-7.

Gazmararian

Williams

Peel

Baker

. Health literacy and knowledge of chronic disease. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;51:267-275.

Lindau

Tomori

Lyons

Langseth

Bennett

Garcia

. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:938-943.

Howard

Gazmararian

Parker

. The impact of low health literacy on the medical costs of Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Med. 2005;118:371-377.

Weiss

Hart

Pust

. The relationship between literacy and health. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 1991;1:351-363.

Health Literacy: Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1999;281:552-557.

Health Online 2013. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. January 2013. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Health-online.aspx. Accessed April 5, 2014.

10.

comScore DataMine. Mobile health information audience jumps 125 percent in the past year. January 2012. http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Data-Mine/Mobile-Health-Information-Audience-Jumps-125-Percent-in-the-Past-Year. Accessed July 5, 2014.

11.

Patel

Cherla

Sanghvi

. Readability assessment of online thyroid surgery patient education materials. Head Neck. 2013;35:1421-1425.

12.

Weiss

. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation; 2003.

13.

How to write easy-to-read health materials: MedlinePlus. February 2013. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed July 5, 2014.

14.

Kutner

Greenberg

Jin

Paulsen

. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education; 2006:19.

15.

Ting

. Evaluating the quality and readability of thyroplasty information on the Internet. J Voice. 2014;28:378-381.

16.

Pusz

Brietzke

. How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the Internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:462-465.

17.

Paasche-Orlow

Taylor

Brancati

. Readability standards for informed consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med2003;348:721-726.

18.

Flesch

. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-233.

19.

Kincaid

Fishburne

Rogers

. Derivation of New Readability Ability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel: Report. Millington, TN: Research Branch, Naval Technical Training Command; 1975.

20.

McLaughlin

. SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639-646.

21.

Eloy

Kasabwala

. Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:848-854.

22.

Kasabwala

Agarwal

Hansberry

Baredes

Eloy

. Readability assessment of the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation patient education materials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147:466-471.

23.

Greywoode

Bluman

Spiegel

Boon

. Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery website. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:555-558.

24.

Cherla

Sanghvi

Choudhry

Liu

Eloy

. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1649-1654.

25.

Sanghvi

Cherla

Shukla

Eloy

. Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures. Laryngoscope. 2012;122:1943-1948.

26.

Sabharwal

Badarudeen

Unes Kunju

. Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS Web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1245-1250.

27.

Sharma

Tridimas

Fitzsimmons

. A readability assessment of online stroke information. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:1362-1367.

28.

Edmunds

Barry

Denniston

. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131:1610-1616.

29.

Hansberry

Ramchand

Patel

. Are we failing to communicate? Internet-based patient education materials and radiation safety. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:1698-1702.

30.

Kim

Eng

Deering

Maxfield

. Published criteria for evaluating health-related web sites: review. BMJ. 1999;318:647-649.

31.

Charnock

. The DISCERN Handbook: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Abingdon, UK: Radcliffe Medical; 1998.

32.

Rees

CE1

Ford

Sheard

. Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;47:273-275.

33.

Strychowsky

Nayan

Farrokhyar

MacLean

. YouTube: a good source of information on pediatric tonsillectomy? Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013:77:972-975.

34.

Experian Information Solutions. Consumer search engine trends. http://www.experian.com/marketing-services/online-trends-search-engine.html. Accessed April 20, 2013.

35.

Shin

Kominski

. Language Use in the United States: 2007, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2010.

36.

Berland

Elliott

Morales

. Health Information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285:2612-2621.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

Readability Assessment of Online Tracheostomy Care Resources

Abstract

Objective

Study Design

Setting:

Subjects and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material