Readability levels of patient information texts regarding cataract surgery on websites

This study aimed to evaluate the contents and readability levels of the texts on cataract surgery on Turkish websites. A total of 300 websites were searched by the Google (www.google.com.tr) search engine using the keywords ‘cataract surgery’, ‘phaco’ and ‘phacoemulsification’. Readability values of the informative texts on the websites were analysed were calculated using the Atesman and Bezirci-Yılmaz formulas. Sites prepared by private hospitals or medical centres constituted group 1, individual sites of ophthalmologists constituted group 2, and sites providing general health information that did not belong to group 1 or group 2 constituted group 3. In total, health information presented in 85 websites was analysed. According to Atesman and Bezirci-Yılmaz, the mean readability values were 49.6 ± 7.5 and 12.9 ± 2.8, respectively. There was no statistically significant inter-group difference in terms of the average number of sentences, of words, of words with four or more syllables and of syllables (p = 0.579, p = 0.434, p = 0.236 and p = 0.336, respectively). The readability values of groups 1 and 3 were significantly different according to the Atesman and Bezirci- Yılmaz formulas (p = 0.025 and p = 0.023, respectively). In terms of content, groups 1 and 2 had relatively more comprehensive information. The readability level of information texts related to cataract surgery on Turkish websites is above the academic level recommended according to the education level of Turkey. In order to help patients make medical decisions using these websites, it is imperative to revise the contents of health information related to cataract according to the literacy level of Turkish people.

PDF

___

1. Eysenbach G. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. In: Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ, eds. Digital media, youth, and credibility. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2008;123-54.
2. Rennie CA, Hannan S, Maycock N, et al. Age-related macular degeneration: What do patients find on the Internet? J R Soc Med. 2007;100:473 -7.
3. Dornan BA, Oermann MH. Evaluation of breastfeeding web sites for patient education. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs. 2006;31:18-23.
4. Albright J, Guzman C, Acebo P, et al. Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res. 1996;9:139-3.
5. Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Readability of patient education materials in ophthalmology: A single-institution study and systematic review. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016;16:133.
6. Pascolini D, Mariotti SP. Global estimates of visual impairment: 2010. Br J Ophthalmol. 2012;96:614-8.
7. Ritterband LM, Thorndike FP, Cox DJ, et al. A behavior change model for internet interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:18-27.
8. Clark A, Morlet N, Ng JQ, et al. Whole population trends in complications of cataract surgery over 22 years in Western Australia. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:1055-61.
9. Atesman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language Journal. 1997;58:171-4.
10. Bezirci B, Yılmaz AE. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12:49-62. 11. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32:221-33.
12. Yesilyurt ME, Karadeniz O, Gulel FE, et al. Mean and expected years of schooling for provinces in Turkey. PJESS. 2016;3:1-7.
13. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, et al. A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2010;40:292-6.
14. Misra P, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, et al. Readability analysis of internetbased patient information regarding skull base tumors. J Neurooncol. 2012;109:573-80.
15. Sabharwal S, Badarudeen S, Unes Kunju S. Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1245-50.
16. Ibrahim AM, Vargas CR, Koolen PGL, et al. Readability of online patient resources for melanoma. Melanoma Res. 2016;26:58-65.
17. Edmunds MR, Barry RJ, Denniston AK. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA ophthalmol. 2013;131:1610-6.
18. Davis TC, Wolf MS, Bass PF, et al. Low literacy impairs comprehen sion of prescription drug warning labels. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:847-51.
19. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, et al. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:668-74.
20. Finnie RKC, Felder TM, Linder SK, et al. Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. J Cancer Educ. 2010;25:497-505.
21. Sand-Jecklin K. The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 2007;24:119-29.
22. Meillier A, Patel S. Readability of healthcare literature for gastroparesis and evaluation of medical terminology in reading difficulty. Gastroenterology Res. 2017;10:1-5.
23. Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J. 2010;10:38-43.
24. Chalmers I. Invalid health information is potentially lethal. BMJ. 2001;322:998.
25. Alshehri MG, Joury AU. Quality, readability, and understandability of internet-based information on cataract. Health Technol. 2019;9:791-5.