Health Literacy in Clubfoot: A Quantitative Assessment of the Readability, Understandability and Actionability of Online Patient Education Material

Abstract

Background: Parents often access online resources to educate themselves when a child is diagnosed with clubfoot and/ or prior to treatment initiation. In order to be fully understood by the average adult American, online health information must be written at an elementary school reading level. It was hypothesized that current available online resources regarding clubfoot would score poorly on objective measures of readability (syntax reading grade-level), understandability (ability to process key messages), and actionability (providing actions the reader may take). Additionally, it was hypothesized that the outcomes measured would not correlate with the order of listed search results.

Methods: Patient education materials were identified utilizing two independent online searches (Google.com) of the term "Clubfoot". From the top 50 search results, websites were included if directed at educating patients and their families regarding clubfoot. News articles, non-text material (video), research and journal articles, industry websites, and articles not related to clubfoot were excluded. The readability of included resources was quantified using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index( GFI) and Automated Reading Index (ARI). The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was used to assess actionability and understandability using a 0-100% scale for both measures of interest.

Results: Of the 55 unique websites, 37 websites (65.2%) met inclusion criteria. The mean FKGL was 9.2 (+/- 2.1) with only three websites (7.32%) having a reading level ≤6. Mean understandability and actionability scores were 67.2±12.6 and 25.4±25.2, respectively. Thirteen (35%) websites met the understandability threshold of ≥70% but no websites met the actionability criteria. No readability statistics were statistically associated with Google™ search rank (p=0.07). There was no association between readability (p=0.94) nor actionability (p=0.18) scores and Google™ rank. However, understandability scores did correlate with Google™ rank (p=0.02).

Conclusion: Overall, online clubfoot educational materials scored poorly with respect to readability, understandability, and actionability. There is an association with Google™ search rank for understandability of clubfoot materials. However, readability and actionability are not significantly associated with search rank. In the era of shared decision-making, efforts should be made by medical professionals to improve the readability, understandability, and actionability of online resources in order to optimize parent understanding and facilitate effective outcomes.Level of Evidence.

Keywords: clubfoot; health literacy; readability.

Figure 1.

Google Search Trends. Value ranked 0-100 based on GoogleTM algorithm. A value of 100 indicates peak popularity of the term. Studies demonstrate that “clubfoot” was 21.8 times more likely to be searched by the general public compared to “congenital talipes equinovarus.”

Figure 2.

Mean Readability scores. The American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend health information to be written at a 6th grade or lower reading level (orange line). All readability average scores exceed this recommended reading level.

Figure 3.

Acceptable understandability and actionability scores are ≥70% as established by the PEMAT tool. Only 13 (35%) websites met the 70% understandability threshold, while no (0%) websites scored above the 70% actionability threshold.