4.5 Article

Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to facial fractures

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 122, 期 9, 页码 1943-1948

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.23424

关键词

Readability; facial fractures; patient education material; Flesch-Kincaid; Gobbledygook; Flesch Reading Ease Score; Internet-based patient education material; maxillofacial trauma; health literacy; Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective/Hypothesis: Various professional societies, clinical practices, hospitals, and health care-related Web sites provide Internet-based patient education material (IPEMs) to the general public. However, this information may be written above the 6th-grade reading level recommended by the US Department of Health and Human Services. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability of facial fracture (FF)-related IPEMs and compare readability levels of IPEMs provided by four sources: professional societies, clinical practices, hospitals, and miscellaneous sources. Study Design: Analysis of IPEMs on FFs available on Google.com. Methods: The readability of 41 FF-related IPEMs was assessed with four readability indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (Gunning FOG). Averages were evaluated against national recommendations and between each source using analysis of variance and t tests. Results: Only 4.9% of IPEMs were written at or below the 6th-grade reading level, based on FKGL. The mean readability scores were: FRES 54.10, FKGL 9.89, SMOG 12.73, and Gunning FOG 12.98, translating into FF-related IPEMs being written at a difficult writing level, which is above the level of reading understanding of the average American adult. Conclusions: IPEMs related to FFs are written above the recommended 6th-grade reading level. Consequently, this information would be difficult to understand by the average US patient.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据