Availability and Readability Level of Online Patient Education Materials Provided by Cleft Lip and Palate Teams

Abstract

Objectives

Evaluate the readability of online English and Spanish cleft lip and palate patient education materials.

Design

Review of free online materials

Setting

English and Spanish language online patient education materials on cleft lip and palate were collected from American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams.

Participants

American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association (ACPA) approved teams

Interventions

English materials were analyzed using the Flesch-Kincaid, SMOG, and Coleman-Liau readability calculators. Spanish materials were analyzed using the Fry Graph, Fernandez Huerta, and INFLESZ calculators. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for variability between the readability tools.

Outcomes

Readability levels were examined for both sets of materials.

Results

171 (90.5%) teams provided English language materials online, with an average readability score calculated as 10.5 ± 2.9 (10th-11th grade). A total of 44 (23.2%) teams listed Spanish language materials online, with average readability score of 7.9 ± 1.2 (8th grade). ANOVA demonstrated statistically significant variability between the readability assessment tools (P < .01).

Conclusion

Online cleft lip and palate patient education material provided by ACPA craniofacial teams were more available in English than in Spanish. Both sets of materials demonstrated readability levels above the recommended 6th-7th grade. Refining readability is associated with lowered healthcare costs and increased patient satisfaction.

Keywords

cleft lip cleft lip and palate cleft palate craniofacial surgery patient satisfaction

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

What is health literacy? Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; March 31, 2023. Accessed June 13, 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/healthliteracy/learn/index.html

Ismail

Burns

Rezak

, et al. An evaluation of health literacy in plastic surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(4S-1):55-59.

More than half of American households used the internet for health-related activities in 2019, NTIA data show. National Telecommunications and Information Administration; 2020, Accessed July 8, 2023. https://ntia.gov/blog/2020/more-half-american-households-used-internet-health-related-activities-2019-ntia-data-show

Hutchinson

Baird

Garg

. Examining the Reading level of internet medical information for common internal medicine diagnoses. Brief Observation. 2016 June;129(6):637-639.

Preidl

RHM

Kesting

Rau

. Perioperative management in patients with cleft lip and palate. Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. 2020;31(1):95-101.

Kasten

Schmidt

Zickler

, et al. Team care of the patient with cleft lip and palate. Curr Probl Pediatr Adolesc Health Care. 2008;38(5):138-158.

Bureau

USC

. Facts for features: Hispanic Heritage month 2017. Census.gov. Published 2021. Accessed June 11, 2022. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/facts-for-features/2017/hispanic-heritage.html

Vision & Mission Statement. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association. 2021. Accessed May 22, 2022. https://acpa-cpf.org/mission-vision-values/

Standards for approval of cleft palate and craniofacial teams. American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association; February 2019. Accessed May 22, 2022. https://acpa-cpf.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Standards-2019-Update.pdf

10.

Alfonso

DeMitchell-Rodriguez

Ramly

, et al. Assessment of American cleft palate-craniofacial association-approved Teams’ websites for patient-oriented content and readability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(9):1213-1219.

11.

Wasserburg

Sayegh

Sanati-Mehrizy

, et al.

Cleft care readability: Can patients access helpful online resources?

Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(10):1287-1293.

12.

Lavin

Fahy

Abbas

, et al. Readability of online patient information relating to cleft palate surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022 Mar;59(3):330-335.

13.

Coco

Colina

Atcherson

, et al. Readability level of Spanish-language patient-reported outcome measures in audiology and otolaryngology. Am J Audiol. 2017;26(3):309-317.

14.

Powell

Cisu

Klausner

AP.

Bladder cancer health literacy: Assessing readability of online patient education materials. Bl Cancer. 2021;7(1):91-98.

15.

Washington

Cepeda

Jr Moffitt

Groff

Greives

Nguyen

. Is the message clear? Evaluation of readability levels for cleft lip, cleft palate, and craniofacial websites. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(12):1619-1624 .

16.

De Felippe

Kar

. Readability of information related to the parenting of a child with a cleft. Interact J Med Res. 2015;4(3):e14.

17.

Sunkara

Powell

Quick

Landis

. A comprehensive assessment of cleft lip and palate websites and patient education information. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;0(0):1-8.

18.

Edwards

Bonilla

. The use of Spanish language educational materials by American cleft palate-craniofacial association teams. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(6):655-660.

19.

Shelton

. The Value of Search Results Rankings. Forbes. October 30, 2017. Accessed July 8, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2017/10/30/the-value-of-search-results-rankings/?sh=1185b9ec44d3

20.

Gardner

. Health literacy and patient safety events. Pa Patient Saf Advis. 2016;13(2):58-65.

21.

Wiener

Wiener Pla

. Evaluation of educational material for tobacco prevention and cessation used in West Virginia university dental programs. J Dent Hyg. 2011;85(3):204-210.

22.

Readability tools. Transition TN. 2023. Accessed July 8, 2023. https://transitiontn.org/downloadable/readability-tools-2/

23.

Fuentes-Tirado

Vélez-Torres

Colón-Santaella-Colon

Mulero-Portela

. Calidad de la información sobre ejercicios en las páginas de Internet dirigida a sobrevivientes de cáncer de seno. Rev Iberoam Fisioter Kinesiol. 2011;14(2):70-76.

24.

Flesch

. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1948;32(3):221-233.

25.

McLaughlin

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

26.

Coleman

Liau

. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1975;60(2):283-284.

27.

Gillian

Peña

Mountain

. The fry graph applied to Spanish readability. Read Teach. 1980;33(4):426-430.

28.

Huerta

. Medidas sencillas de lecturabilidad. Consigna. 1959;214:29-32.

29.

Barrio-Cantalejo

Simón-Lorda

Melguizo

, et al. Validación de la Escala INFLESZ para evaluar la legibilidad de los textos dirigidos a pacientes. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2008;31(2):135-152.

30.

Gorrepati

Smith

. Contrasting readability and availability of Spanish language with English language patient education materials. Pediatr Dermatol. 2021;28(S2):142-143.

31.

De Oliveira

Jr McCarthy

Wolf

, et al. The impact of health literacy in the care of surgical patients: A qualitative systematic review. BMC Surg. 2015;15(1):86.

32.

Wilson

Williams

. Assessing the readability of skin care and pressure ulcer patient education materials. JWOCN. 2003;30(4):224-230.

33.

Badarudeen

Sabharwal

. Assessing readability of patient education materials: Current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(10):2572-2580.

34.

Ley

Florio

. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med. 1996;1(1):7-28.

35.

Castillo-Ortiz

, Valvidia-Nuno J, Ramirez-Gomez A, Garagarza-Mariscal H, Gallegos-Rios C, Flores-Hernandez G, Hernandez-Sanchez L, Brambila-Barba V, Castaneda-Sanchez JJ, Barajas-Ochoa Z, et al. Readability, relevance and quality of the information in Spanish on the web for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Reumatología Clínica. 2017;13(3):139-144.

36.

Hernandez

Cruz

Robinson

. Spanish-speaking patient health education preferences. Arch Dermatol. 2011;147(2):242-244.

37.

Wernick

, Hale P, Anticich N, Busch S, Merriman L, King B, Pegg T. A randomised crossover trial of minimising medical terminology in secondary care correspondence in patients with chronic health conditions: Impact on understanding and patient reported outcomes. Intern Med J. 2016;46(5):596-601.

38.

Dew

Turner

Choi

Bosold

Kirchhoff

. Development of machine translation technology for assisting health communication: A systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2018;85(C):56-67.

39.

Khoong

Steinbrook

Brown

Fernandez

. Assessing the use of google translate for Spanish and Chinese translations of emergency department discharge instructions. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(4):580-582.

40.

Brelsford

Ruiz

Beskow

. Developing informed consent materials for non-English-speaking participants: An analysis of four professional firm translations from English to Spanish. Clin Trials. 2018;15(6):557-566.

41.

Explore Census Data. data.census.gov. Accessed October 16, 2023. https://data.census.gov/profile/California?g=040XX00US06

42.

Sheppard

, Hyde Z, Florence MN, McGwin G, Kirchner JS, Ponce BA. Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials. Foot Ankle Int. 2014;35(12):1282-1286.

43.

Horner

Surratt

Juliusson

. Improving readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 2000;17(1):15-23.

44.

Summers

. Making the web friendlier for lower-literacy users. Intercom (Des Moines). 2004;51(6):19-21.

45.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. General Services Administration. Home | usability.gov. Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines. 2006. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.usability.gov/sites/default/files/documents/guidelines_book.pdf

46.

Health Literacy Studies: Developing materials. Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health. 2015. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/developing-materials/

47.

Hou

. Health literacy online: A guide to writing and designing easy-to-use health websites. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(5):577-580.

48.

U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Toolkit for making written material clear and effective. CMS. December 1, 2021. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.cms.gov/outreach-and-education/outreach/writtenmaterialstoolkit

49.

The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and user's guide. AHRQ. October 2013. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/patient-education/pemat.html

50.

The CDC Clear Communication index. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2021. Accessed May 31, 2022. https://www.cdc.gov/ccindex/index.html

51.

Doak

Root

Doak

. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. J. B. Lippincott; 1996.

52.

About cleft lip and palate. Nationwide Children's Hospital. Accessed May 22, 2022. https://www.nationwidechildrens.org/specialties/cleft-lip-and-palate-center/about-cleft-lip-and-palate

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

0.05 MB