Sax Leah, Razak Alina, Shetty Kunal, Cohen Michael, Levi Jessica
Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St., MA, 02118, USA; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University Medical Center, 830 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Boston University School of Medicine, 72 East Concord St., MA, 02118, USA; Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University Medical Center, 830 Harrison Avenue, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019 Oct;125:168-174. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.07.009. Epub 2019 Jul 12.
A cross-sectional study design was utilized to evaluate the readability of patient education materials on the newborn hearing screen from Google and major institutions.
The top 55 websites from the Google search "failed newborn hearing screen" and websites from major institutions (the U.S. News & World Report ranked top 10 children's hospitals, the top 5 pediatric otolaryngology fellowships as ranked by Doximity Residency Navigator, the Centers for Disease and Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery) were compiled. Text from each website was edited to remove extraneous text. Readability grade was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score, Gunning-Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Coleman-Liau Index, and Automated Readability Index. Intra- and inter-observer reliability were assessed.
26 websites from Google and 29 websites from major institutions were evaluated. From Google, provider-oriented websites (n = 2) were more difficult to read than patient-oriented websites (n = 24) with statistical significance for FKGL (p < 0.001), GFI (p < 0.013) and SMOG (p < 0.001). From the major institutions, more than half were at a reading level that exceeded the average American adult with an average FKGL 9.71 ± 2.69. Intra- and inter-observer reliability were both excellent with an intra-class correlation coefficient for each readability tool ≥0.950 (p < 0.001).
Online patient education materials about the newborn hearing screen may be too difficult for the average reader. Revisions to these materials and redirection to more readable online resources may be necessary to benefit a more inclusive patient population.
采用横断面研究设计，评估来自谷歌及主要机构的新生儿听力筛查患者教育材料的可读性。
整理谷歌搜索“新生儿听力筛查未通过”的前55个网站以及主要机构的网站（《美国新闻与世界报道》排名前十的儿童医院、Doximity住院医师导航器排名前五的儿科耳鼻喉科奖学金项目、疾病控制中心、美国儿科学会以及美国耳鼻喉科-头颈外科学会）。对每个网站的文本进行编辑，去除无关文本。使用弗莱什-金凯德年级水平（FKGL）、弗莱什阅读简易度得分、冈宁-福格指数（GFI）、晦涩难懂简易度量表（SMOG）、科尔曼-廖指数和自动可读性指数计算可读性等级。评估观察者内和观察者间的可靠性。
评估了来自谷歌的26个网站和来自主要机构的29个网站。在谷歌搜索结果中，面向提供者的网站（n = 2）比面向患者的网站（n = 24）更难阅读，FKGL（p < 0.001）、GFI（p < 0.013）和SMOG（p < 0.001）具有统计学意义。在主要机构的网站中，超过一半的网站阅读水平超过美国成年人平均水平，平均FKGL为9.71 ± 2.69。观察者内和观察者间的可靠性均极佳，每个可读性工具的组内相关系数≥0.950（p < 0.001）。
关于新生儿听力筛查的在线患者教育材料对普通读者来说可能太难。可能需要对这些材料进行修订，并引导患者访问更具可读性的在线资源，以使更多患者受益。
