Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the readability of online patient education materials (PEMs) for cleft lip and/or palate and assess their alignment with recommended readability levels.
Design
This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting
Literature search conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases following PRISMA guidelines.
Materials
Studies evaluating online PEMs for cleft care with reported readability metrics, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, SMOG Index, or Gunning Fog Index.
Interventions
Assessment of readability metrics of online PEMs and evaluation of artificial intelligence tools (eg, ChatGPT) for text simplification.
Main Outcome Measure(s)
Pooled readability estimates (eg, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease, SMOG Index, Gunning Fog Index), heterogeneity (I²), and confidence intervals (CIs).
Results
Nine studies were included, consistently showing that PEMs exceed readability recommendations. Pooled estimates revealed a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 9.48 (95% CI: 8.51-10.45), Flesch Reading Ease score of 52.98 (95% CI: 42.62-63.34), SMOG Index of 9.27 (95% CI: 5.97-12.57), and Gunning Fog Index of 9.94 (95% CI: 8.90-10.98). Heterogeneity was minimal (I² = 0%). Artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT demonstrated potential in simplifying text to the recommended sixth-grade reading level but lacked usability and comprehension testing.
Conclusions
Online PEMs for cleft care are consistently written at reading levels too complex for the average caregiver, underscoring the need for improved readability and accessibility. Future research should focus on developing multimodal resources, conducting usability assessments, and including non-English materials to address global disparities in cleft care education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
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.
