Readability of pediatric otolaryngology information by children's hospitals and academic institutions

Wong, Kevin; Levi, Jessica R.

doi:10.1002/lary.26359

Cited by 27 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As an alternate, Doximity rankings were used to stratify residency programs based on research output. Doximity uses two metrics to create a composite research output ranking system: the h ‐indices of alumni from a particular institution from the past 15 years and research grants awarded to the institutional otolaryngology department This measure was deemed appropriate as it measures the capacity of an institution to train productive academic otolaryngologists by measuring the h ‐index of alumni from a residency program rather than existing faculty, and Doximity is currently the most widely used ranking system to stratify otolaryngology residency programs . Previous publications have used the Doximity ranking system to tier otolaryngology residency programs, and it is currently the most accessible ranking modality available to students and academic mentors …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Otolaryngology Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 222 First‐Year Residents

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Otolaryngology Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 222 First‐Year Residents

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They accomplish this by assigning a numeric value to the readability of the analysed written information (Mcinnes & Haglund, 2011). This numeric value often reflects the equivalent academic grade level in the American educational system required to understand the text (Wong & Levi, 2016). The formulas themselves are multiple regression equations incorporating a combination of factors pertaining to the written material, such as the average word length in syllables, the average sentence length in words, and the proportion of common, monosyllabic, or polysyllabic words within the text (Ley & Florio, 1996).…”

Section: Measuring Readabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

Douglas

Kelly-Campbell

2018

Am J Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When developing or reevaluating PROMs designed for use in adult audiologic rehabilitation, researchers should consider ways to improve the readability of their measure, as poor readability may affect the validity of the empirical data collected using the PROM. Additionally, the adequate readability of audiologic PROMs is required if patient/family-centered care values are to be adhered to within the field of adult audiologic rehabilitation.

show abstract

“…Six readability scales were utilized as follows: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). 17,18…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of Patient Education Sections on Otitis Media Across Different Website Platforms

Shetty

Wang

Shetty

et al. 2020

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the quality, content, and readability of patient education materials pertaining to otitis media across several popular online platforms focused on otolaryngology and pediatric primary care education. Methods: Online patient materials related to otitis media and directed toward parents were collected from the American Association for Family Practice (AAFP), ENT-Health section of the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, Healthychildren.org from the American Academy of Pediatrics, KidsHealth from Nemours, WebMD, and Wikipedia. Materials were analyzed for quality, content, and readability. The DISCERN instrument was used to score quality. A unique content score was generated based on the information provided on each website and on the medical and surgical management of otitis media. Readability scores were calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning-Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. Results: Overall, content was well-balanced. Information from AAFP and Healthychildren.org was focused more on medical management than other sources. The average DISCERN scores showed all sources to be of good quality with minimal shortcomings. The AAFP and KidsHealth websites had some readability scores around the 8th-grade reading level, the National Institute of Health’s upper limit recommended for public health information; however, most websites were above this recommended reading level. Conclusion: Patient education materials related to otitis media on academic and certain popular internet sites are good sources to obtain high-quality information on the topic. Patient educational background, prior knowledge and understanding of otitis media, and physician-patient partnership goals should be taken into account when referring patients to online materials.

show abstract

Readability of pediatric otolaryngology information by children's hospitals and academic institutions

Abstract: NA Laryngoscope, 127:E138-E144, 2017.

Cited by 27 publications

References 34 publications

The Otolaryngology Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 222 First‐Year Residents

The Otolaryngology Match: A Bibliometric Analysis of 222 First‐Year Residents

Readability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Adult Audiologic Rehabilitation

Quality of Patient Education Sections on Otitis Media Across Different Website Platforms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About