Assessing Readability: Are Urogynecologic Patient Education Materials at an Appropriate Reading Level?

Abstract

Objective The National Institutes of Health recommends readability of patient material not exceed sixth-grade level. Our aim was to determine readability of American Urogynecologic Society (AUGS) and International Urogynecological Association (IUGA) patient education documents. Methods Available English- and Spanish-language IUGA patient information leaflets and AUGS patient fact sheets were scored for grade reading level. Readability assessment was performed using Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Fry graph formulas for English documents. For Spanish documents, Fernandez-Huerta and SOL readability formulas were utilized. Each document was assessed by a health literacy expert using standards of plain language best practices. Results We assessed 86 documents: 18 AUGS, 34 IUGA, and 34 IUGA Spanish documents. Readability combined scores for English AUGS documents ranged from 8th to 12th grade level equivalents, whereas English IUGA documents ranged from 7th to 13th. Combined average readability score for AUGS sheets was 9.9 ± 1.2 grade level equivalents versus 10.5 ± 1.3 for IUGA leaflets. The AUGS documents had lower grade level equivalents on all 3 readability scales. Spanish-language IUGA leaflets had an average readability score of 5.9 ± 0.6 grade level equivalents, with a range of fifth to seventh. Health literacy expert analysis found only 1 document met all the criteria for plain language best practice. Conclusions All assessed AUGS and IUGA patient information English documents had readability scores above National Institutes of Health–recommended reading level. Spanish IUGA documents were written at a lower reading level than their English counterparts. To best meet patient education needs, future materials development should emphasize readability and utilization of plain language best practices.

COVID-19 Consumer Health Information Needs Improvement to Be Readable and Actionable by High-Risk Populations

“…During public health emergencies, the public needs easy access to health information that is clear, meaningful, and actionable. Our results are similar to those of previous assessments of health information (Davis et al, 1990;Stossel et al, 2012;Haller et al, 2019;Prince et al, 2019) and suggest that even during a high-stakes public health threat, deficiencies in the quality of consumer health information are common. This is especially concerning given that people in high-risk categories for limited health literacy (e.g., older adults, people with chronic health conditions, and minorities) are also the people at high risk of experiencing the worst effects of COVID-19.…”

Improving the Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Therapy

“…This study supports the work of previous authors who cite a need for healthcare providers to address problems associated with low health literacy [ 15 - 24 , 27 ]. The findings of this study are also consistent with prior studies assessing educational materials used by other medical and rehabilitation specialties, which found that PEM are written at a higher reading level than that at which the average American can read and that is recommended by major national health organizations [ 15 - 18 ]. Finally, the findings support the work of previous authors who found that steps can be taken to reduce the reading level of PEM and that improving clients’ ability to understand healthcare materials is a multifactorial process [ 23 , 26 ].…”

Patient evaluation of gynaecological information provision and preferences

“…There is strong evidence to suggest that the levels of literacy required to access both written and online uro‐gynaecology and gynaecology educational materials are above the recommended reading ability (Haller et al, 2019; Reagan et al, 2015; Samuel et al, 2019; Stewart et al, 2019). Designers of educational health materials may benefit from using novel approaches such as video (Hodges‐Wills et al, 2021) or virtual reality (van der Kruk et al, 2022) incorporating consumer input to address inequities in provision of health information.…”