Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study
- PMID: 31361388
- DOI: 10.1002/pmrj.12230
Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study
Abstract
Background: Patients are increasingly using the Internet to access health information. Patient awareness and education are crucial to advancing the field of PM&R, but many U.S. adults have insufficient health literacy skills to read and understand patient education materials (PEM), frequently written at the 10th-15th-grade level. Reading ability is key for health literacy, but no previous research has assessed the readability of PEM provided by professional PM&R societies.
Objectives: Evaluate whether the readability of PM&R PEM meets the NIH-recommended eighth-grade reading level; compare readability of PM&R PEM to two commonly accessed patient resources for sports and rehabilitation medicine topics, handouts from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), whose readability has been previously analyzed.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Methods: Publicly accessible entries within the patient education section of websites sanctioned by professional PM&R societies, as well as the AAOS and AAFP, were analyzed for readability using two validated and widely used tools, the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) formulas. Comparative statistics were performed between the three surveyed specialties.
Main outcome measures: FKGL and SMOG readability scores, which estimate U.S. grade level, or years of education, needed to comprehend text.
Results: A total of 167 online PM&R resources were identified and compared to 94 articles from AAOS and 65 from AAFP. Mean SMOG and FKGL levels exceeded the eighth-grade level for both PM&R (SMOG-9.71, 95% CI 9.42-10.0; FKGL-10.35, 95% CI 9.99-10.7) and AAOS (SMOG-9.15, 95% CI 8.96-9.35; FKGL-9.51, 95% CI 9.29-9.74), whereas AAFP met readability guidelines for both measures (SMOG-7.00, 95% CI 6.74-7.27; FKGL-6.76, 95% CI 6.45-7.07). SMOG and FKGL scores suggested significantly higher reading difficulty for PM&R compared to AAOS (SMOG P = .017; FKGL P = .0001) and AAFP (SMOG P < .0001; FKGL P < .0001). Results indicated that 17% of PM&R resources complied with NIH guidelines, vs 8% for AAOS and 83% for AAFP.
Conclusions: The average readability of PM&R PEM exceeds the NIH-recommended and average U.S. adult eighth-grade reading level. The physiatry community can make its patient materials more comprehensible and accessible for patients by providing resources at a more appropriate reading level.
© 2019 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.
Similar articles
-
Readability of Online Spine Patient Education Resources.World Neurosurg. 2022 Jun;162:e640-e644. doi: 10.1016/j.wneu.2022.03.091. Epub 2022 Mar 25. World Neurosurg. 2022. PMID: 35342026
-
Readability of Trauma-related Patient Education Materials From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and Orthopaedic Trauma Association Websites.J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024 Jul 1;32(13):e642-e650. doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00449. Epub 2024 Apr 25. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2024. PMID: 38684136
-
Most American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' online patient education material exceeds average patient reading level.Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015 Apr;473(4):1181-6. doi: 10.1007/s11999-014-4071-2. Epub 2014 Dec 5. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2015. PMID: 25475715 Free PMC article.
-
The Readability of AAOS Patient Education Materials: Evaluating the Progress Since 2008.J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016 Sep 7;98(17):e70. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00658. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016. PMID: 27605695 Review.
-
Readability of Trauma-Related Patient Education Materials From the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Trauma Mon. 2016 Feb 6;21(1):e20141. doi: 10.5812/traumamon.20141. eCollection 2016 Feb. Trauma Mon. 2016. PMID: 27218045 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Evaluating co-created patient-facing materials to increase understanding of genetic test results.J Genet Couns. 2021 Apr;30(2):598-605. doi: 10.1002/jgc4.1348. Epub 2020 Oct 24. J Genet Couns. 2021. PMID: 33098367 Free PMC article.
-
Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-covid pain.PeerJ. 2022 Jul 20;10:e13686. doi: 10.7717/peerj.13686. eCollection 2022. PeerJ. 2022. PMID: 35880220 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Vives M, Young L, Sabharwal S. Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites. Spine. 2009;34:2826-2831. https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4bb0c.
-
- Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO. A readability assessment of online Parkinson's disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010;40:292-296. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401.
-
- Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Ad hoc committee on health literacy for the council on scientific affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 1999;281:552-557.
-
- Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The health literacy of America's adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. 2006. Available from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2006483. Accessed February 15, 2019.
-
- National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy-to-Read Health Materials. 2017. Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed January 2, 2019.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Research Materials
Miscellaneous