Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Bases de dados
País/Região como assunto
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
JAMA Ophthalmol ; 131(12): 1610-6, 2013 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24178035

RESUMO

IMPORTANCE: Patients increasingly use the Internet to access information related to their disease, but poor health literacy is known to impact negatively on medical outcomes. Multiple agencies have recommended that patient-oriented literature be written at a fourth- to sixth-grade (9-12 years of age) reading level to assist understanding. The readability of online patient-oriented materials related to ophthalmic diagnoses is not yet known. OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability of online literature specifically for a range of ophthalmic conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Body text of the top 10 patient-oriented websites for 16 different ophthalmic diagnoses, covering the full range of ophthalmic subspecialties, was analyzed for readability, source (United Kingdom vs non-United Kingdom, not for profit vs commercial), and appropriateness for sight-impaired readers. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four validated readability formulas were used: Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). Data were compared with the Mann-Whitney test (for 2 groups) and Kruskal-Wallis test (for more than 2 groups) and correlation was assessed by the Spearman r. RESULTS: None of the 160 webpages had readability scores within published guidelines, with 83% assessed as being of "difficult" readability. Not-for-profit webpages were of significantly greater length than commercial webpages (P = .02) and UK-based webpages had slightly superior readability scores compared with those of non-UK webpages (P = .004 to P < .001, depending on the readability formula used). Of all webpages evaluated, only 34% included facility to adjust text size to assist visually impaired readers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess readability of patient-focused webpages specifically for a range of ophthalmic diagnoses. In keeping with previous studies in other medical conditions, we determined that readability scores were inferior to those recommended, irrespective of the measure used. Although readability is only one aspect of how well a patient-oriented webpage may be comprehended, we recommend the use of readability scoring when producing such resources in the future. Minimum readability policies and inclusion of facilities within webpages to maximize viewing potential for visually impaired readers are important to ensure that online ophthalmic patient information is accessible to the broadest audience possible.


Assuntos
Compreensão/classificação , Oftalmopatias/diagnóstico , Letramento em Saúde/normas , Internet , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/normas , Leitura , Instrução por Computador , Bases de Dados Factuais , Avaliação Educacional , Guias como Assunto , Política de Saúde/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Materiais de Ensino , Estados Unidos , United States Dept. of Health and Human Services
2.
Laryngoscope ; 122(8): 1649-54, 2012 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22685030

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Numerous professional societies, clinical practices, and hospitals provide Internet-based patient education materials (PEMs) to the general public, but not all of this information is written at a reading level appropriate for the average patient. The National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services recommend that PEMs be written at or below the sixth-grade level. Our purpose was to assess the readability of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS)-related PEMs available on the Internet and compare readability levels of PEMs provided by three sources: professional societies, clinical practices, and hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: A descriptive and correlational design was used for this study. METHODS: The readability of 31 ESS-related PEMs was assessed with four different readability indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (Gunning FOG). Averages were evaluated against national recommendations and between each source using analysis of variance and t tests. RESULTS: The majority of PEMs (96.8%) were written above the recommended sixth-grade reading level, based on FKGL (P < .001). Only one article (3.2%) had an FKGL at or below the sixth-grade level. The mean readability values were: FRES 47.1 ± 13.4, FKGL 10.7 ± 2.4, SMOG 13.7 ± 1.6, and Gunning FOG 12.4 ± 2.7. CONCLUSIONS: Current Internet-based PEMs related to ESS, regardless of source type, were written well above the recommended sixth-grade level. Materials from the hospitals/university-affiliated websites had lower readability scores, but were still above recommended levels. Web-based PEMs pertaining to ESS should be written with the average patient in mind.


Assuntos
Compreensão , Instrução por Computador/métodos , Endoscopia/educação , Letramento em Saúde , Internet , Seios Paranasais/cirurgia , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/métodos , Adulto , Compreensão/classificação , Escolaridade , Feminino , Letramento em Saúde/classificação , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Masculino , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA