Readability of Foot and Ankle Patient-Reported Outcomes: Alignment with National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association Standards.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q2 Medicine Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.016
Harjot Uppal, Daniel Garcia, Isaac Soliman, Dylan Dupont, Nikhil Sahai, Andrew McGinniss, Arash Emami
{"title":"Readability of Foot and Ankle Patient-Reported Outcomes: Alignment with National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association Standards.","authors":"Harjot Uppal, Daniel Garcia, Isaac Soliman, Dylan Dupont, Nikhil Sahai, Andrew McGinniss, Arash Emami","doi":"10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient-reported outcome measures are essential tools for assessing surgical interventions, capturing patient perspectives on functionality, symptoms, and quality of life. However, ensuring that these measures are easily understandable is crucial for accurate patient responses. The National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend that patient materials be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level. This study evaluated the readability of 45 commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery to determine alignment with these guidelines. A readability analysis was conducted using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, with a threshold of a Flesch Reading Ease Score of at least 80 or a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index below 7 indicating a sixth-grade or lower reading level. The average readability scores indicated an eighth to ninth-grade reading level, with only 31% of patient-reported outcome measures meeting the readability threshold. Among the least readable measures were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scales for various foot and ankle regions and the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale. These findings suggest that most foot and ankle surgery patient-reported outcome measures are above the recommended readability level, potentially hindering patient comprehension and response accuracy. Improving the readability of patient-reported outcome measures, either by developing new tools or modifying existing ones, may enhance the accessibility and reliability of patient-reported data. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: 4.</p>","PeriodicalId":50191,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jfas.2025.01.016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures are essential tools for assessing surgical interventions, capturing patient perspectives on functionality, symptoms, and quality of life. However, ensuring that these measures are easily understandable is crucial for accurate patient responses. The National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend that patient materials be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level. This study evaluated the readability of 45 commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in foot and ankle surgery to determine alignment with these guidelines. A readability analysis was conducted using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, with a threshold of a Flesch Reading Ease Score of at least 80 or a Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index below 7 indicating a sixth-grade or lower reading level. The average readability scores indicated an eighth to ninth-grade reading level, with only 31% of patient-reported outcome measures meeting the readability threshold. Among the least readable measures were the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Clinical Rating Scales for various foot and ankle regions and the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale. These findings suggest that most foot and ankle surgery patient-reported outcome measures are above the recommended readability level, potentially hindering patient comprehension and response accuracy. Improving the readability of patient-reported outcome measures, either by developing new tools or modifying existing ones, may enhance the accessibility and reliability of patient-reported data. LEVEL OF CLINICAL EVIDENCE: 4.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery
Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery ORTHOPEDICS-SURGERY
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
234
审稿时长
29.8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Foot & Ankle Surgery is the leading source for original, clinically-focused articles on the surgical and medical management of the foot and ankle. Each bi-monthly, peer-reviewed issue addresses relevant topics to the profession, such as: adult reconstruction of the forefoot; adult reconstruction of the hindfoot and ankle; diabetes; medicine/rheumatology; pediatrics; research; sports medicine; trauma; and tumors.
期刊最新文献
Readability of Foot and Ankle Patient-Reported Outcomes: Alignment with National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association Standards. Who's Really Footing the Bill? Sex and Ethnicity Disparities in the Cost of Diabetic Foot Ulcer-Related Amputations in a Major Healthcare System. Lateral Wall Displacement of Calcaneal Fracture Leading to Peroneal Tendon Dislocation: Effect of the Distance of Lateral Wall Displacement on the incidence of Peroneal Tendon Dislocation. Simultaneous Bilateral Surgery for Accessory Naviculars does not Have a Negative Effect on Postoperative Outcome. Volumetric assessment of the soft tissue envelope in unilateral closed ankle fractures using a portable 3D scanner.
×
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