Carpal Tunnel Surgery: Can Patients Read, Understand, and Act on Online Educational Resources?

Abstract

Background: Patients often access online resources to educate themselves prior to undergoing elective surgery such as carpal tunnel release (CTR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate available online resources regarding CTR on objective measures of readability (syntax reading grade-level), understandability (ability to convey key messages in a comprehensible manner), and actionability (providing actions the reader may take).

Methods: The study conducted two independent Google searches for "Carpal Tunnel Surgery" and among the top 50 results, analyzed articles aimed at educating patients about CTR. Readability was assessed using six different indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman Liau Index, Automated Readability Index. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool evaluated understandability and actionability on a 0-100% scale. Spearman's correlation assessed relationships between these metrics and Google search ranks, with p<0.05 indicating statistical significance.

Results: Of the 39 websites meeting the inclusion criteria, the mean readability grade level exceeded 9, with the lowest being 9.4 ± 1.5 (SMOG index). Readability did not correlate with Google search ranking (lowest p=0.25). Mean understandability and actionability were 59% ± 15 and 26% ± 24, respectively. Only 28% of the articles used visual aids, and few provided concise summaries or clear, actionable steps. Notably, lower grade reading levels were linked to higher actionability scores (p ≤ 0.02 in several indices), but no readability metrics significantly correlated with understandability. Google search rankings showed no significant association with either understandability or actionability scores.

Conclusion: Online educational materials for CTR score poorly in readability, understandability, and actionability. Quality metrics do not appear to affect Google search rankings. The poor quality metric scores found in our study highlight a need for hand specialists to improve online patient resources, especially in an era emphasizing shared decision-making in healthcare. Level of Evidence: IV.