Shet Sahil S, Murphy Ben, Boran Sinead, Taylor Colm
Orthopaedics, Cork University Hospital, Cork, IRL.
Cureus. 2024 Mar 30;16(3):e57268. doi: 10.7759/cureus.57268. eCollection 2024 Mar.
Background Parents often access online resources to educate themselves on their child's condition. In-toeing, also referred to as pigeon toeing, is a common paediatric condition that has a variety of causes and is often a cause of concern for parents. With the increasing usage of the internet, parents of children with this condition may look to the web for answers. However, to be understood by the average adult, online health information must be written at an elementary school reading level. We hypothesised that currently available online resources regarding in-toeing would score poorly on objective measures of readability and understandability. Methods Patient education materials were identified via three commonly used online search engines (Google.com, Yahoo.com, and Bing.com). The terms "intoeing" and "pigeon toeing" were used for the search. From the top 50 search results, websites were included if directed at educating patients and their families regarding in-toeing. News articles, non-text material (video), industry websites, and articles not related to in-toeing were excluded. The readability was analysed using a specialised website www.readable.com to produce the following three scores: Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG). Understandability was calculated using the 19-point Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Results After removing duplicates, 84 unique websites were assessed for inclusion. A total of 48 websites and articles (57.14%) met the inclusion criteria. Of note, 23 articles out of 84 (27.38%) were excluded as they were intended for healthcare professionals. The means for the FRE, FKG, and GFI were 57.92 (±12.26), 7.92 (±1.91), and 9.35 (±2.36), respectively. Less than half of online resources had an FRE score at or higher than the recommended reading level for the general population. Mean understandability scores were 69.63% (±11.55%), with only 45.83% of articles being greater than the 70% requirement of adequate understandability. Conclusion Overall, online in-toeing educational materials scored poorly with respect to readability and understandability. Given the popularity of online resources in patient education, we should seek to improve this situation. Articles that are easier to read are thus more accessible to the general public and will aid in the shared decision-making process. Improved patient and parent satisfaction and overall standard of care can be expected.
背景 家长经常通过网络资源来了解孩子的病情。内八字，也称为“鸭步”，是一种常见的儿科病症，病因多样，常令家长担忧。随着互联网使用的增加，患有这种病症孩子的家长可能会在网上寻求答案。然而，为了让普通成年人能够理解，在线健康信息必须以小学阅读水平来撰写。我们推测，目前关于内八字的在线资源在可读性和可理解性的客观衡量标准上得分较低。
方法 通过三个常用的在线搜索引擎（Google.com、Yahoo.com和Bing.com）来确定患者教育材料。搜索词使用“intoeing”和“pigeon toeing”。在前50个搜索结果中，如果网站旨在教育患者及其家属关于内八字的知识，则将其纳入。新闻文章、非文本材料（视频）、行业网站以及与内八字无关的文章均被排除。使用专门的网站www.readable.com分析可读性，得出以下三个分数：冈宁雾度指数（GFI）、弗莱什易读性指数（FRE）和弗莱什-金凯德年级水平（FKG）。使用19分的患者教育材料评估工具（PEMAT）计算可理解性。
结果 在去除重复项后，对84个独特的网站进行了纳入评估。共有48个网站和文章（57.14%）符合纳入标准。值得注意的是，84篇文章中有23篇（27.38%）被排除，因为它们是针对医疗保健专业人员的。FRE、FKG和GFI的平均值分别为57.92（±12.26）、7.92（±1.91）和9.35（±2.36）。不到一半的在线资源的FRE得分达到或高于一般人群推荐的阅读水平。平均可理解性得分是69.63%（±11.55%），只有45.83%的文章大于充分可理解性所需的70%。
结论 总体而言，关于内八字的在线教育材料在可读性和可理解性方面得分较低。鉴于在线资源在患者教育中的普及，我们应努力改善这种情况。因此，更易读的文章对公众来说更容易获取，并将有助于共同决策过程。有望提高患者和家长的满意度以及整体护理标准。
