Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Iowa Orthop J. 2021;41(1):61-67.
Parents often access online resources to educate themselves when a child is diagnosed with clubfoot and/ or prior to treatment initiation. In order to be fully understood by the average adult American, online health information must be written at an elementary school reading level. It was hypothesized that current available online resources regarding clubfoot would score poorly on objective measures of readability (syntax reading grade-level), understandability (ability to process key messages), and actionability (providing actions the reader may take). Additionally, it was hypothesized that the outcomes measured would not correlate with the order of listed search results.
Patient education materials were identified utilizing two independent online searches (Google.com) of the term "Clubfoot". From the top 50 search results, websites were included if directed at educating patients and their families regarding clubfoot. News articles, non-text material (video), research and journal articles, industry websites, and articles not related to clubfoot were excluded. The readability of included resources was quantified using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Grade, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Gunning-Fog Index( GFI) and Automated Reading Index (ARI). The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was used to assess actionability and understandability using a 0-100% scale for both measures of interest.
Of the 55 unique websites, 37 websites (65.2%) met inclusion criteria. The mean FKGL was 9.2 (+/- 2.1) with only three websites (7.32%) having a reading level ≤6. Mean understandability and actionability scores were 67.2±12.6 and 25.4±25.2, respectively. Thirteen (35%) websites met the understandability threshold of ≥70% but no websites met the actionability criteria. No readability statistics were statistically associated with Google™ search rank (p=0.07). There was no association between readability (p=0.94) nor actionability (p=0.18) scores and Google™ rank. However, understandability scores did correlate with Google™ rank (p=0.02).
Overall, online clubfoot educational materials scored poorly with respect to readability, understandability, and actionability. There is an association with Google™ search rank for understandability of clubfoot materials. However, readability and actionability are not significantly associated with search rank. In the era of shared decision-making, efforts should be made by medical professionals to improve the readability, understandability, and actionability of online resources in order to optimize parent understanding and facilitate effective outcomes..
当孩子被诊断为足内翻和/或在开始治疗之前,父母通常会访问在线资源来进行自我教育。为了让普通美国成年人完全理解,在线健康信息必须用小学阅读水平书写。据推测,目前关于足内翻的在线资源在客观可读性(句法阅读年级)、可理解性(处理关键信息的能力)和可操作性(提供读者可采取的行动)方面得分较低。此外,据推测,所测量的结果不会与列出的搜索结果顺序相关。
利用谷歌搜索引擎(Google.com)进行两次独立的在线搜索(搜索词为“Clubfoot”),确定患者教育材料。如果这些网站旨在教育患者及其家属有关足内翻的知识,则将其列入。新闻文章、非文本材料(视频)、研究和期刊文章、行业网站以及与足内翻无关的文章均被排除在外。使用弗莱什阅读舒适度得分(FRES)、弗莱什-金凯德年级水平(FKGL)、简单测谬评分(SMOG)、科尔曼-廖氏指数(CLI)、古宁-福格指数(GFI)和自动阅读指数(ARI)来量化纳入资源的可读性。使用患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)对可操作性和可理解性进行评估,对这两个感兴趣的指标分别采用 0-100%的评分。
在 55 个独特的网站中,有 37 个网站(65.2%)符合纳入标准。平均 FKGL 为 9.2(+/-2.1),只有 3 个网站(7.32%)的阅读水平≤6。平均可理解性和可操作性得分分别为 67.2±12.6 和 25.4±25.2。13 个(35%)网站达到了≥70%的可理解性阈值,但没有一个网站达到了可操作性标准。没有任何可读性统计数据与谷歌搜索引擎排名有统计学意义(p=0.07)。可读性(p=0.94)和可操作性(p=0.18)评分与谷歌搜索引擎排名之间均无关联。然而,可理解性评分与谷歌搜索引擎排名相关(p=0.02)。
总体而言,在线足内翻教育材料在可读性、可理解性和可操作性方面得分都较差。谷歌搜索引擎排名与足内翻材料的可理解性有关。然而,可读性和可操作性与搜索排名并无显著关联。在共同决策时代,为了优化家长的理解并促进有效的结果,医疗专业人员应努力提高在线资源的可读性、可理解性和可操作性。