Assessment of American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association-Approved Teams’ Websites for Patient-Oriented Content and Readability

Abstract

Objective:

Informed decision-making relies on available information, including online resources. We evaluated the content and readability of websites published by American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA)-approved cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) teams in the United States.

Design:

Team websites were reviewed, and teams with no accessible website or <30 sentences of content were excluded. Website content was scored by presence/absence of 20 variables derived from ACPA approval standards. Readability was evaluated with 8 scales. Readability was then compared to American Medical Association (AMA) recommendations. The relationship between website content and readability was assessed.

Main Outcome Measure(s):

Content and readability of team websites.

Results:

From 167 reviewed teams, 47 (28.1%) had nonfunctional links, 17 (10.2%) had no accessible website, and 39 (23.4%) had <30 sentences. The average content score for all 111 team websites included was 14.5 (2.6) of 20. The combined average reading level across all scales (10.7 [1.9]) exceeded the AMA-recommended sixth-grade reading level; this finding held true for each individual website. Children’s Hospital-affiliated teams (n = 86) had a significantly higher content score (14.8 vs 13.5; P = .03) and better readability as evidenced by lower reading grade level (10.5 vs 11.4; P = .04). On linear regression, a higher content score significantly predicted better readability (β = −0.226; P < .001).

Conclusions:

Websites published by ACPA-approved CLP teams vary in accessibility and content and exceed the recommended reading level. These findings could inform future efforts to improve patient-oriented resources.

Keywords

cleft lip cleft palate readability online content online resources patient education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alamoudi

Hong

. Readability and quality assessment of websites related to microtia and aural atresia. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2015;79(2):151–156.

American Medical Association. Code of medical ethics: consent, communication & decision making. 2.1.1 Informed consent. 2018. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/code-medical-ethics-consent-communication-decision-making. Accessed August 9, 2018.

Antonarakis

Kiliaridis

. Internet-derived information on cleft lip and palate for families with affected children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(1):75–80.

Baldwin

Kaufman

. A concurrent validity study of the Raygor Readability Estimate. J Reading. 1979;23(2):148–153.

Berland

Elliott

Morales

Algazy

Kravitz

Broder

Kanouse

Muñoz

Puyol

Lara

, et al. Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA. 2001;285(20):2612–2621.

Boyer

Baujard

Geissbuhler

. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011;169:53–57.

Caylor

Sticht

Fox

Ford

. Methodologies for Determining Reading Requirements of Military Occupational Specialties. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization; 1973.

Charnock

Shepperd

Needham

Gann

. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53(2):105–111.

Chu

Cook

Tholpady

Schmalbach

Momeni

. Facial plastic surgery patient resources exceed National Institute recommendations. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(3):759–763.

10.

Coleman

Liau

. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol. 1975;60(2):283–284.

11.

D’Alessandro

Kingsley

Johnson-West

. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155(7):807–812.

12.

Dale

Chall

. The concept of readability. Elem Engl. 1949;26(1):19–26.

13.

De Felippe

Kar

. Readability of information related to the parenting of a child with a cleft. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4(3):1–8.

14.

Diaz

Griffith

Reinert

Friedmann

Moulton

. Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med. 2002;17(3):180–185.

15.

DuBay

. Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text. Costa Mesa, CA: Impact Information; 2007.

16.

Fahy

Hardikar

Fox

Mackay

. Quality of patient health information on the Internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J. 2014;7(1):24–28.

17.

Fraval

Chandrananth

Chong

Coventry

Tran

. Internet based patient education improves informed consent for elective orthopaedic surgery: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:14.

18.

Fry

. A readability formula that saves time. J Reading. 1968;11(7):513–578.

19.

Fry

. Fry’s readability graph: clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. J Reading. 1977;21(3):242–252.

20.

Gunning

. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1952.

21.

Kincaid

Fishburne

Rogers

Chissom

. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Millington, Tennessee: Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florid. 1975.

22.

Kiwanuka

Mehrzad

Prsic

Kwan

. Online patient resources for gender affirmation surgery: an analysis of readability. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;79(4):329–333.

23.

Kutner

Greenberg

Jin

Paulsen

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

24.

Lee

Cronin

Robinson

Anders

Unertl

Kelly

Hankins

Skeens

Jackson

. Common consumer health-related needs in the pediatric hospital setting: lessons from an engagement consultation service. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(3):595–603.

25.

Mc Laughlin

. SMOG Grading—a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12(8):639–646.

26.

National Center for Education Statistics. National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/naal. 2003. Accessed July 31, 2018.

27.

Patel

Hoppe

Ahuja

Ciminello

. Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(4):1179–1182.

28.

Perrin

Duggan

. “Americans’ Internet Access: 2000-2015.” Pew Research Center. 2015.

29.

Purcell

Wilson

Delamothe

. The quality of health information on the internet. BMJ. 2002;324(7337):557–558.

30.

Rainie

Fox

. “The Online Health Care Revolution: How the web helps Americans take better care of themselves” Pew Research Center. 2000. Available at: http://www.pewinternet.org/2000/11/26/the-online-health-care-revolution/. Accessed August 5, 2018.

31.

Raygor

. The Raygor Readability Estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson

Hansen

eds. Reading: Theory, Research and Practice. The Twenty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference; 1977. Clemson, SC. 259–263.

32.

Ricci

Vargas

Chuang

Lin

Lee

. Readability assessment of online patient resources for breast augmentation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(6):1573–1579.

33.

Ruiz-Rodriguez

Lopez-Noriega

. Reoperations in cleft lip and cleft palate treatment. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2011;23(1):169–176.

34.

Shaye

Liu

Tollefson

. Cleft lip and palate: an evidence-based review. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am. 2015;23(3):357–372.

35.

Silberg

Lundberg

Musacchio

. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor—Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997;277(15):1244–1245.

36.

Strauss

. The organization and delivery of craniofacial health services: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(3):189–195.

37.

The Joint Commission. Informed consent: more than getting a signature. Quick Safety: An Advisory on Safety and Quality Issues. 2016;(21):1–3.

38.

US Department of Health & Human Services. Healthy people 2010 (2nd ed.) [with Understanding and Improving Health (vol. 1) and Objectives for Improving Health (vol. 2)]. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 2000. Available at: https://www.healthypeople.gov/2010/Document/tableofcontents.htm#under. Accessed December 11, 2018.

39.

van den Bosch

Koudstaal

Versnel

Maal

Nelen

Bergé

Faber

. Patients and professionals have different views on online patient information about cleft lip and palate (CL/P). Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016;45(6):692–699.

40.

Vargas

Chuang

Lee

. Online patient resources for hernia repair: analysis of readability. J Surg Res. 2014;190(1):144–150.

41.

Weiss

BD.

Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand. 2007. Available at: https://med.fsu.edu/userFiles/file/ahec_health_clinicians_manual.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2018.

42.

Yin

Johnson

Mendelsohn

Abrams

Sanders

Dreyer

. The health literacy of parents in the United States: a nationally representative study. Pediatrics. 2009;124(suppl 3):S289–S298.

43.

Zhou

Kiwanuka

Morrissey

. Online patient resources for deceased donor and live donor kidney recipients: a comparative analysis of readability. Clin Kidney J. 2018;11(4):559–563.

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

0.03 MB