Readability of Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org: Has There Been Progress Over the Past 5 Years?

OBJECTIVE. As patients increasingly turn to the Internet for healthcare information, it is imperative that patient educational materials be written at an appropriate readability level. Although RadiologyInfo.org, a patient education library sponsored by the American College of Radiology (ACR) and Radiological Society of North America, was shown in 2012 to be written at levels too high for the average patient to adequately comprehend, it is unclear if there has been progress made in the past 5 years. The purpose of this study was to provide a 5-year update on the readability of patient education materials from RadiologyInfo.org. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All patient education articles available in 2017 from the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were reviewed. We assessed each article for readability using 6 quantitative readability scales: the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level, Flesch Reading Ease, Gunnin-Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Automated Readability Index, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). The number of articles with readability ≤ the 8th grade level (average reading ability of US adults) and the 6th-grade level (NIH-recommended level for patient materials) were determined. RESULTS. 131 patient education articles were reviewed. The mean readability grade level was greater than the 11th grade reading level for all readability scales. None of the articles were written at less than the 8th-grade or the 6th-grade levels. CONCLUSION. Although there has been an increasing awareness of the issue of readability of patient educational materials within the radiological community, the patient educational materials within the ACR and RSNA-sponsored RadiologyInfo.org website are still written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of those patient education materials.

Readability of Spanish-Language Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org.

PURPOSE: Readability of patient education materials has been linked to health outcomes, and reports on patient education materials in radiology have demonstrated readability levels higher than recommended. Few studies in radiology, however, have assessed patient comprehension of Spanish-language health care educational materials. The purpose of this study was thus to assess the readability of patient education materials written in Spanish from RadiologyInfo.org. METHODS: All patient education materials written in Spanish available in July 2017 from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library were compiled into a database over a 1-day period. After modification and editing to minimize artificial changes in readability levels, four readability scales were used to assess the texts: the Gilliam-Peña-Mountain scale, the Läsbarhets formula, the rate index formula, and the SOL formula. Readability was compared among scales using analysis of variance, and inter- and intrarater variability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In total, 134 patient education articles written in Spanish were included from the RadiologyInfo.org patient education library. The mean readability grade level was the 10th grade reading level or higher for all scales (average, 12th grade); only one article was written below the 8th grade level. There was no significant difference in readability level on the basis of readability scale used. CONCLUSIONS: Spanish-language patient educational materials provided at the RadiologyInfo.org website are written at levels too high for the average patient. Future efforts should be made to improve the readability of these patient education materials for English and Spanish speakers alike.

How comprehensive are nuclear medicine residency websites?

Our goal for this study was to evaluate the comprehensiveness of nuclear medicine (NM) residency websites from the USA and Canada. The authors searched all the existing NM residency programs as listed in the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database and the Canadian Residency Matching Service. We analyzed each website for the presence or absence of 44 elements previously identified as important considerations for medical students applying to residency. We compared criteria prevalence between regions and program size using t-tests and analysis of variance. Our results showed that, of 47 NM residencies, 9 did not have a dedicated website, leaving a total of 38 websites available for evaluation. The individual websites in the USA had a mean of 15 of 44 elements sought; in contrast, Canadian programs had 26 of 44 elements sought. The most common elements included contact e-mail, mailing address, and comprehensive faculty listings. Information about resident hometown, academic interests, and extracurricular interests was only included in 3% of the websites. Only 3% of websites included case description and 11% included rotation schedule. Courses attended were included in 5%, educational resources in 8%, and resident education was included in 5% of the websites. In conclusion, about one in five NM residency programs do not have a publicly available website. The websites that do exist are incomprehensive, containing an average of only 32% of elements sought for the USA programs and 41% of elements sought in Canadian programs. Residency program websites are an important tool in recruiting medical students. Addressing the lack of available websites as well as the gap in content of the websites that does exist may improve recruitment of students to NM residency programs.