Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Internet Information on Meningiomas

Saeed, Fozia; Anderson, Ian

doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.001

Cited by 26 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach has been shown to be feasible: Saeed successfully used a combination of the syntactic and semantic measures (FRE and FKGL) and the CCI to evaluate the readability and accessibility of web-based information for individuals with meningioma. 30 Similarly, Hoffman and colleagues used SMOG and SAM to assess information for patients who had a stroke. 33 Wallace et al 32 used a combination of the DISCERN instrument and the SAM to evaluate internet information for individuals with osteoporosis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.DesignRetrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.SettingPILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.InterventionNot applicable.Main outcome measuresPILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.ResultsA total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as ‘Plain English’, 40.3%: ‘Fairly Difficult’, 51.3%: ‘Difficult’ and 1.3%: ‘Very Difficult’. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.ConclusionsWhen assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The FKGL score [22] is one of the most commonly used readability measures for patient education materials [32][33][34][35][36] and online consumer health information [37][38][39]. The FKGL score reports readability as a grade equivalent reading level [16].…”

Section: Readabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments

Mani

Ottosen

Fratta

et al. 2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the public’s need for quality health information that is understandable. This study aimed to identify (1) the extent to which COVID-19 messaging by state public health departments is understandable, actionable, and clear; (2) whether materials produced by public health departments are easily readable; (3) relationships between material type and understandability, actionability, clarity, and reading grade level; and (4) potential strategies to improve public health messaging around COVID-19. Methods: Based on US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics from June 30, 2020, we identified the ten states with the most COVID-19 cases and selected forty-two materials (i.e., webpages, infographics, and videos) related to COVID-19 prevention according to predefined eligibility criteria. We applied three validated health literacy tools (i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, CDC Clear Communication Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) to assess material understandability, actionability, clarity, and readability. We also analyzed correlations between scores on the three health literacy tools and material types.Results: Overall, COVID-19 materials had high understandability and actionability but could be improved in terms of clarity and readability. Material type was significantly correlated with understandability, actionability, and clarity. Infographics and videos received higher scores on all tools.Conclusions: Based on our findings, we recommend public health entities apply a combination of these tools when developing health information materials to improve their understandability, actionability, and clarity. We also recommend using infographics and videos when possible, taking a human-centered approach to information design, and providing multiple modes and platforms for information delivery.

show abstract

“…This impact of only using intuition is evident in SIPsmartER's original materials, which were purposefully developed with clear communications principles in mind, but not with an objective tool (Zoellner et al, 2014). For example, while these considerations did allow SIPsmartER's original handouts to have higher overall proportional scores than other similar materials that have had their overall scores reported (77% versus a range of 57% to 72% (Alpert et al, 2017;McClure et al, 2016;Saeed & Anderson, 2017)), the proportional scores of the original materials did not meet the 90% benchmark.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Behavioral health interventions communicate information as a means to build the motivation and skills necessary to change targeted health behaviors and to improve health-related health In addition to the CDC using the CCI to assess and revising its own materials, there are five known studies that have reported using the CCI. These studies evaluated a patient electronic portal (Alpert, Desens, Krist, Aycock, & Kreps, 2017), education materials for sickle cell disease (McClure, Ng, Vitzthum, & Rudd, 2016), water quality reports (Phetxumphou et al, 2016), internet information on meningiomas (Saeed & Anderson, 2017), and a web-based toolkit (Prue et al, 2015). Notably, these studies all focused on materials designed to be used with little interaction between provider/educator and patient/participant, and none reported revising and/or re-assessing the clarity of the materials after the revision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the Clear Communication Index to Improve Materials for a Behavioral Intervention

Porter

Alexander²,

Perzynski

et al. 2018

Health Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ensuring that written materials used in behavioral interventions are clear is important to support behavior change. This study used the Clear Communication Index (CCI) to assess the original and revised versions of three types of written participant materials from the SIPsmartER intervention. Materials were revised based on original scoring. Scores for the entire index were significantly higher among revised versions than originals (57% versus 41%, p < 0.001); however, few revised materials (n = 2 of 53) achieved the benchmark of ≥90%. Handouts scored higher than worksheets and slide sets for both versions. The proportion of materials scored as having "a single main message" significantly increased between versions for worksheets (7% to 57%, p = 0.003) and slide sets (33% to 67%, p = 0.004). Across individual items, most significant improvements were in Core, with four-items related to the material having a single main message. Findings demonstrate that SIPsmartER's revised materials improved after CCI-informed edits. They advance the evidence and application of the CCI, suggesting it can be effectively used to support improvement in clarity of different types of written materials used in behavioral interventions. Implications for practical considerations of using the tool and suggestions for modifications for specific types of materials are presented.

show abstract

Evaluating the Quality and Readability of Internet Information on Meningiomas

Cited by 26 publications

References 19 publications

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments

Using the Clear Communication Index to Improve Materials for a Behavioral Intervention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About