{"title":"Assessing the Readability of English and Spanish Online Patient Educational Materials for Deep Venous Thrombosis","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jss.2024.08.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Online patient educational materials (OPEMs) help patients engage in their health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends OPEM be written at or below the 6th grade reading level. This study assessed the readability of deep venous thrombosis OPEM in English and Spanish.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Google searches were conducted in English and Spanish using “deep venous thrombosis” and “<span><span>trombosis venosa profunda</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>,” respectively. The top 25 patient-facing results were recorded for each, and categorized into source type (hospital, professional society, other). Readability of English OPEM was measured using several scales including the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and INFLESZ Scale. Readability was compared to the AMA recommendation, between languages, and across source types.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Only one (4%) Spanish OPEM was written at an easy level, compared to 7 (28%) English OPEM (<em>P</em> = 0.04). More English (28%) OPEM were easy to read compared to Spanish (4%), with a significant difference in reading difficulty breakdown between languages (<em>P</em> = 0.04). The average readability scores for English and Spanish OPEM across all scales were significantly greater than the recommended level (<em>P</em> < 0.01). Only four total articles (8%) met the AMA recommendation, with no significant difference between English and Spanish OPEM (<em>P</em> = 0.61).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Nearly all English and Spanish deep venous thrombosis OPEM analyzed were above the recommended reading level. English resources had overall easier readability compared to Spanish, which may represent a barrier to care. To limit health disparities, information should be presented at accessible reading levels.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":17030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Surgical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022480424005237","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Online patient educational materials (OPEMs) help patients engage in their health care. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends OPEM be written at or below the 6th grade reading level. This study assessed the readability of deep venous thrombosis OPEM in English and Spanish.
Methods
Google searches were conducted in English and Spanish using “deep venous thrombosis” and “trombosis venosa profunda,” respectively. The top 25 patient-facing results were recorded for each, and categorized into source type (hospital, professional society, other). Readability of English OPEM was measured using several scales including the Flesch Reading Ease Readability Formula and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Readability of Spanish OPEM was measured using the Fernández-Huerta Index and INFLESZ Scale. Readability was compared to the AMA recommendation, between languages, and across source types.
Results
Only one (4%) Spanish OPEM was written at an easy level, compared to 7 (28%) English OPEM (P = 0.04). More English (28%) OPEM were easy to read compared to Spanish (4%), with a significant difference in reading difficulty breakdown between languages (P = 0.04). The average readability scores for English and Spanish OPEM across all scales were significantly greater than the recommended level (P < 0.01). Only four total articles (8%) met the AMA recommendation, with no significant difference between English and Spanish OPEM (P = 0.61).
Conclusions
Nearly all English and Spanish deep venous thrombosis OPEM analyzed were above the recommended reading level. English resources had overall easier readability compared to Spanish, which may represent a barrier to care. To limit health disparities, information should be presented at accessible reading levels.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Surgical Research: Clinical and Laboratory Investigation publishes original articles concerned with clinical and laboratory investigations relevant to surgical practice and teaching. The journal emphasizes reports of clinical investigations or fundamental research bearing directly on surgical management that will be of general interest to a broad range of surgeons and surgical researchers. The articles presented need not have been the products of surgeons or of surgical laboratories.
The Journal of Surgical Research also features review articles and special articles relating to educational, research, or social issues of interest to the academic surgical community.