"Lost in Translation: The Readability Discrepancy of Online Patient Educational Materials for PCL Surgery".

Kuan-Yu Lin, Rena G Wang, Saleh Hassan, Andi Zhang, Scott G Kaar
{"title":"\"Lost in Translation: The Readability Discrepancy of Online Patient Educational Materials for PCL Surgery\".","authors":"Kuan-Yu Lin, Rena G Wang, Saleh Hassan, Andi Zhang, Scott G Kaar","doi":"10.22038/ABJS.2024.75361.3492","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>While the internet provides accessible medical information, often times it does not cater to the average patient's ability to understand medical text at a 6th and 8th grade reading level, per American Medical Association (AMA)/National Institute of Health (NIH) recommendations. This study looks to analyze current online materials relating to posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) surgery and their readability, understandability, and actionability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The top 100 Google searchs for \"PCL surgery\" were compiled. Research papers, procedural protocols, advertisements, and videos were excluded from the data collection. The readability was examined using 7 algorithms: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG index, Automated Readability Index and the Linsear Write Formula. Two evaluators assessed Understandability and Actionability of the results with the Patient Educational Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Outcome measures included Reading Grade Level, Reader's age minimum and maximum, Understandability, and Actionability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 100 results, 16 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between the readability of the results from all algorithms and the current recommendation by AMA and NIH. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that there was no difference in readability as it pertained to which page they appeared on Google search. There was also no difference in readability between individual websites versus organizational websites (hospital and non-hospital educational websites). Three articles were at the 8th grade recommended reading level, and all three were from healthcare institutes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is a discrepancy in readability between the recommendation of AMA/NIH and online educational materials regarding PCL surgeries, regardless of where they appear on Google and across different forums. The understandability and actionability were equally poor. Future research can focus on the readability and validity of video and social media as they are becoming increasingly popular sources of medical information.</p>","PeriodicalId":46704,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11070682/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery-ABJS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/ABJS.2024.75361.3492","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: While the internet provides accessible medical information, often times it does not cater to the average patient's ability to understand medical text at a 6th and 8th grade reading level, per American Medical Association (AMA)/National Institute of Health (NIH) recommendations. This study looks to analyze current online materials relating to posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) surgery and their readability, understandability, and actionability.

Methods: The top 100 Google searchs for "PCL surgery" were compiled. Research papers, procedural protocols, advertisements, and videos were excluded from the data collection. The readability was examined using 7 algorithms: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning Fog, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Coleman-Liau Index, SMOG index, Automated Readability Index and the Linsear Write Formula. Two evaluators assessed Understandability and Actionability of the results with the Patient Educational Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Outcome measures included Reading Grade Level, Reader's age minimum and maximum, Understandability, and Actionability.

Results: Of the 100 results, 16 were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. There was a statistically significant difference between the readability of the results from all algorithms and the current recommendation by AMA and NIH. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that there was no difference in readability as it pertained to which page they appeared on Google search. There was also no difference in readability between individual websites versus organizational websites (hospital and non-hospital educational websites). Three articles were at the 8th grade recommended reading level, and all three were from healthcare institutes.

Conclusion: There is a discrepancy in readability between the recommendation of AMA/NIH and online educational materials regarding PCL surgeries, regardless of where they appear on Google and across different forums. The understandability and actionability were equally poor. Future research can focus on the readability and validity of video and social media as they are becoming increasingly popular sources of medical information.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
"翻译中的迷失:PCL 手术在线患者教育材料的可读性差异"。
目的:虽然互联网提供了便捷的医疗信息,但根据美国医学会(AMA)/美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)的建议,互联网往往无法满足普通患者以六至八年级的阅读水平理解医学文本的能力。本研究旨在分析当前与后交叉韧带(PCL)手术相关的在线资料及其可读性、可理解性和可操作性:方法:对谷歌搜索 "PCL 手术 "排名前 100 位的内容进行整理。方法:对谷歌搜索 "PCL 手术 "排名前 100 位的内容进行了汇总,数据收集中不包括研究论文、手术方案、广告和视频。使用 7 种算法对可读性进行检查:Flesch 阅读容易程度评分、Gunning Fog、Flesch-Kincaid 分级、Coleman-Liau 指数、SMOG 指数、自动可读性指数和 Linsear 书写公式。两名评估员使用患者教育材料评估工具 (PEMAT) 评估结果的可理解性和可操作性。结果测量包括阅读等级、读者最小和最大年龄、可理解性和可操作性:在 100 份结果中,有 16 份根据排除标准被排除。所有算法得出的结果的可读性与美国医学会和美国国立卫生研究院目前的建议之间存在统计学意义上的显著差异。分组分析表明,谷歌搜索结果的可读性与搜索结果出现在哪个页面没有差异。个人网站与组织网站(医院和非医院教育网站)的可读性也没有差异。有三篇文章达到了八年级的建议阅读水平,而且这三篇文章都来自医疗机构:结论:美国医学会/美国国立卫生研究院(AMA/NIH)的建议与有关 PCL 手术的在线教育材料在可读性方面存在差异,无论这些材料出现在谷歌的哪个位置以及不同的论坛。可理解性和可操作性同样很差。由于视频和社交媒体正成为越来越受欢迎的医疗信息来源,因此未来的研究可以重点关注它们的可读性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
128
期刊介绍: The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) aims to encourage a better understanding of all aspects of Orthopedic Sciences. The journal accepts scientific papers including original research, review article, short communication, case report, and letter to the editor in all fields of bone, joint, musculoskeletal surgery and related researches. The Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery (ABJS) will publish papers in all aspects of today`s modern orthopedic sciences including: Arthroscopy, Arthroplasty, Sport Medicine, Reconstruction, Hand and Upper Extremity, Pediatric Orthopedics, Spine, Trauma, Foot and Ankle, Tumor, Joint Rheumatic Disease, Skeletal Imaging, Orthopedic Physical Therapy, Rehabilitation, Orthopedic Basic Sciences (Biomechanics, Biotechnology, Biomaterial..).
期刊最新文献
A Large Ankle Mass in a Figure Skater: A Case Report. Diagnostic Value of Radiographic Singh Index Compared to Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry Scan in Diagnosing Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review. Double and Single Bundle in Athletes: A Comparison in Medium and Long-Term Rates to Return to Sport and Re-Injury. Investigating the Effect of Addition of Cervical Proprioceptive Training to Conventional Physiotherapy on Visual, Vestibular and Proprioceptive Dependency of Postural Control in Patients with Chronic Non-Specific Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Is Arthroscopic Latarjet a Cost-Effective Procedure? A Decision Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1