<< Back to the abstract archive
Readability of Online Patient Resources for Head & Neck Procedures
Julia A. Cook, Arash Momeni, Rajiv Sood, Michael W. Chu
Indiana University School of Medicine, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
2016-02-01
Presenter: Julia A. Cook
Affidavit:
I certify that Julia A. Cook was integral in the design of this study. She was one of the two reviewers of the data, and she performed the analysis and interpretation of the data. She is the original author of this abstract.
Director Name: Rajiv Sood, MD
Author Category: Medical Student
Presentation Category: Clinical
Abstract Category: Craniomaxillofacial
BACKGROUND: Patient education is essential for therapeutic alliance, increasing patient satisfaction, and improving outcomes. However, online resources often exceed the literacy of patients, despite NIH and AMA recommendations that information be written at a sixth-grade reading level. The purpose of this study is to assess readability of online material for facial procedures on academic Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology websites.
METHODS: An Internet search was performed of all academic hospitals that had both Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology training programs. Patient information for procedures offered by both services was compiled, formatted into plain text, and analyzed for Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Score, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG Index, and Automated Readability Index. National society websites for Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology were used as controls.
RESULTS: A total of 63 programs were identified; 42 had educational material. The overall average readability for all information was at a 10th grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid, 10.5; Gunning Fog, 13.2; Coleman-Liau, 13.7; SMOG 9.9; Automated Readability, 10.7). The average readability for Plastic Surgery information was 10.4, average readability for Otolaryngology was 10.5 (p = 0.45). Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology national society websites had material at the 11th and 12th grade reading level, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Online resources of academic hospitals for facial procedures are more complex than recommended reading levels. This represents a potential obstacle to patient education, decision making, and satisfaction. Providers should be aware of these issues and direct patient to appropriate resources.
