How Readable Is BPH Treatment Information on the Internet? Assessing Barriers to Literacy in Prostate Health
- PMID: 27903952
- PMCID: PMC5675298
- DOI: 10.1177/1557988316680935
How Readable Is BPH Treatment Information on the Internet? Assessing Barriers to Literacy in Prostate Health
Abstract
Information about benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) has become increasingly accessible on the Internet. Though the ability to find such material is encouraging, its readability and impact on informing patient decision making are not known. To evaluate the readability of Internet-based information about BPH in the context of website ownership and Health on the Net certification, three search engines were queried daily for 1 month with BPH-related keywords. Website ownership data and Health on the Net certification status were verified. Three readability analyses were performed: SMOG test, Dale-Chall readability formula, and Fry readability graph. An adjusted SMOG calculation was performed to reduce overestimation from medical jargon. After a total of 270 searches, 52 websites met inclusion criteria. Mean SMOG grade was 10.6 ( SD = 1.4) and 10.2 after adjustment. Mean Dale-Chall score was 9.1 ( SD = 0.6), or Grades 13 to 15. Mean Fry graph coordinates (173 syllables, 5.1 sentences) corresponded to Grade 15. Seven sites (13%) were at or below the average adult reading level based on SMOG; none of the sites qualified based on the other tests. Readability was significantly poorer for academic versus commercial sites and for Health on the Net-certified versus noncertified sites. In conclusion, online information about BPH treatment markedly exceeds the reading comprehension of most U.S. adults. Websites maintained by academic institutions and certified by the Health on the Net standard have more difficult readability. Efforts to improve literacy with respect to urological health should target content readability independent of reliability.
Keywords: Internet; benign prostatic hyperplasia; consumer health information; health literacy; readability.
Conflict of interest statement
Figures



Similar articles
-
Readability analysis of online health information about overactive bladder.Neurourol Urodyn. 2017 Sep;36(7):1782-1787. doi: 10.1002/nau.23176. Epub 2016 Oct 29. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017. PMID: 27794197
-
Assessing the readability and quality of online information about benign prostatic hyperplasia.World J Urol. 2023 Jan;41(1):257-262. doi: 10.1007/s00345-022-04223-9. Epub 2022 Nov 22. World J Urol. 2023. PMID: 36416925
-
Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations.JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015 Apr;133(4):449-54. doi: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015. PMID: 25654639
-
Cauda equina syndrome: assessing the readability and quality of patient information on the Internet.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 May 1;39(10):E645-9. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000000282. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014. PMID: 24583736 Review.
-
Readability and Quality Evaluation of Thyroidectomy Websites: A Systematic Review.J Surg Res. 2024 Nov;303:652-662. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2024.09.052. Epub 2024 Oct 22. J Surg Res. 2024. PMID: 39442293
Cited by
-
Empowering patient choice: a systematic review of decision aids for benign prostatic hyperplasia.BJU Int. 2025 Sep;136(3):359-371. doi: 10.1111/bju.16797. Epub 2025 May 27. BJU Int. 2025. PMID: 40420675 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Patients' perspective on prostatic artery embolization: A qualitative study.SAGE Open Med. 2021 Mar 12;9:20503121211000908. doi: 10.1177/20503121211000908. eCollection 2021. SAGE Open Med. 2021. PMID: 33786178 Free PMC article.
-
Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer.Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 26;14(1):17234. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67293-2. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 39060365 Free PMC article.
-
Readability assessment of commonly used urological questionnaires.Investig Clin Urol. 2018 Sep;59(5):297-304. doi: 10.4111/icu.2018.59.5.297. Epub 2018 Aug 2. Investig Clin Urol. 2018. PMID: 30182074 Free PMC article.
-
Online Health Information for Penile Prosthesis Implants Lacks Quality and Is Unreadable to the Average US Patient.Cureus. 2023 Jan 26;15(1):e34240. doi: 10.7759/cureus.34240. eCollection 2023 Jan. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 36852349 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Chall J. S., Dale E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale–Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous