College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois.
Department of Radiation Oncology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Pract Radiat Oncol. 2019 Nov;9(6):435-440. doi: 10.1016/j.prro.2019.06.005. Epub 2019 Jun 19.
Prior research suggests that patient education materials on radiation therapy from various professional groups are written at reading levels above national recommendations of sixth to eighth grade. Since publication of these initial findings, many materials from these sources have been updated or newly created. However, the extent to which readability was considered in the design of these new documents remains unknown. Therefore, the goal of this investigation was to evaluate readability of online education materials for radiation therapy, comparing readability of updated materials with those included in the previous study.
Patient education materials related to radiation oncology were identified from websites of the 3 professional societies used in the original investigation (the American College of Radiology, the American Cancer Society, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology). The documents included in the first analysis were used as a comparator. To allow for accurate evaluation across groups, materials were matched by content; when necessary, documents were combined from the original cohort to create topically equivalent materials to reflect those currently available on society websites. Identified materials were analyzed using 7 validated readability indices, and results are reported in grade-level equivalents. Original materials were also reanalyzed with the same method.
American Cancer Society materials had the lowest average baseline levels (9.4-11.3 grade level) and showed improved readability in the more recent materials (8.0-10.5 grade level). By contrast, the American Society for Radiation Oncology materials had high average baseline readability levels (11.1-13.9 grade level) that actually worsened in the more recent materials (11.7-16.2 grade level). The number of documents meeting national recommendations did not improve in the updated cohort.
Despite evidence that readability levels of patient education materials in radiation oncology are unacceptably high, the readability of newly created materials is not consistently improving across professional societies. Although certain groups may incorporate readability in the design of educational documents, more consistent consideration across all organizations is needed.
先前的研究表明，来自不同专业团体的放射治疗患者教育材料的阅读水平高于国家建议的六年级至八年级。自最初发现这些结果以来，这些来源的许多材料已经更新或新创建。然而，在设计这些新文件时，考虑到可读性的程度仍然未知。因此，本研究的目的是评估放射治疗在线教育材料的可读性，比较更新材料与先前研究中包含的材料的可读性。
从最初调查中使用的 3 个专业协会（美国放射学院、美国癌症协会和美国放射肿瘤学会）的网站上确定与放射肿瘤学相关的患者教育材料。将第一次分析中包含的文档用作比较器。为了在组间进行准确评估，通过内容匹配材料；必要时，从原始队列中组合文档，以创建主题等效的材料，以反映目前在协会网站上可用的材料。使用 7 种经过验证的可读性指标分析识别出的材料，并以年级水平等价物报告结果。还使用相同的方法重新分析原始材料。
美国癌症协会的材料平均基线水平最低（9.4-11.3 年级），最近的材料可读性有所提高（8.0-10.5 年级）。相比之下，美国放射肿瘤学会的材料具有较高的平均基线可读性水平（11.1-13.9 年级），而最近的材料实际上更差（11.7-16.2 年级）。在更新的队列中，符合国家建议的文档数量没有增加。
尽管有证据表明放射肿瘤学患者教育材料的可读性水平高得令人无法接受，但新创建的材料的可读性在专业协会中并未持续提高。虽然某些群体可能在教育文档的设计中纳入可读性，但需要在所有组织中更一致地考虑。
