Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: a single-institution study and systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundPatient education materials should be written at a level that is understandable for patients with low health literacy. The aims of this study are (1) to review the literature on readability of ophthalmic patient education materials and (2) to evaluate and revise our institution’s patient education materials about glaucoma using evidence-based guidelines on writing for patients with low health literacy.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on the PubMed/MEDLINE database for studies that have evaluated readability level of ophthalmic patient education materials, and the reported readability scores were assessed. Additionally, we collected evidence-based guidelines for writing easy-to-read patient education materials, and these recommendations were applied to revise 12 patient education handouts on various glaucoma topics at our institution. Readability measures, including Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and word count were calculated for the original and revised documents. The original and revised versions of the handouts were then scored in random order by two glaucoma specialists using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument, a grading scale used to evaluate suitability of health information materials for patients. Paired t test was used to analyze changes in readability measures, word count, and SAM score between original and revised handouts. Finally, five glaucoma patients were interviewed to discuss the revised materials, and patient feedback was analyzed qualitatively.ResultsOur literature search included 13 studies that evaluated a total of 950 educational materials. Among the mean FKGL readability scores reported in these studies, the median was 11 (representing an eleventh-grade reading level). At our institution, handouts’ readability averaged a tenth-grade reading level (FKGL = 10.0 ± 1.6), but revising the handouts improved their readability to a sixth-grade reading level (FKGL = 6.4 ± 1.2) (p < 0.001). Additionally, the mean SAM score of our institution’s handouts improved from 60 ± 7 % (adequate) for the original versions to 88 ± 4 % (superior) for the revised handouts (p < 0.001).ConclusionsOur systematic review of the literature reveals that ophthalmic patient education materials are consistently written at a level that is too high for many patients to understand. Our institution’s experience suggests that applying guidelines on writing easy-to-understand material can improve the readability and suitability of educational materials for patients with low health literacy.

Health literacy in pressure injury: Findings from a mixed‐methods study of community‐based patients and carers

“…Therefore, age and community literacy must be taken into account when preparing patient information materials. Examination of patient literature exposes its potential lack of readability, typically using language requiring a high school‐level reading age, alongside variability in typeface sizes and quality of presentation, all contributing to reduced readability (Fitzsimmons, Michael, Hulley, & Scott, ; Williams, Muir, & Rosdahl, ; Wilson & Williams, ), potentially reducing the ability of older people to effectively engage with this material. People for whom English is a second language might also find it more difficult to engage with patient information resources around PI.…”

Tecnologia para realização do autoexame ocular: comparação entre cartilha impressa e virtual

“…Thus, screenings using Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) represent a strategy that tends to radically change the panorama of late detection of visual impairments (9) . Therefore, it is essential that materials address guidelines on eye health at accessible reading levels, both in the printed and the online versions (4) . Printed materials allow individuals to coordinate their learning process according to their own reading speed, representing a valuable contribution to patient education, since it allows constant reinforcement of information (10) .…”

“…It is therefore pertinent to contribute to extending care beyond clinics and hospital units with educational actions that use technologies such as folders, booklets and manuals for self-care of the eyes (3) . This fact points to the need to develop materials on the subject that favor screening for reducing cases of blindness due to preventable causes (4) . Thus, virtual and printed versions of the booklet were created (3,5) regarding ocular self-examination.…”

Effect of a tailored leaflet to promote diabetic retinopathy screening among young adults with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial.

“…A range of barriers to retinal screening have been identified among this group (12)(13)(14), leading to calls for tailored, age-appropriate intervention (15,16).…”