Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:54:20.068Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Readability of internet-based patient information for radiotherapy patients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2018

David Flinton ,
Manrita K. Singh  and
Krupesh Haria
David Flinton*
Affiliation:
Department of Radiography, Division of Midwifery and Radiography, City, University of London, London, UK
Manrita K. Singh
Affiliation:
Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundations Trust, Oxford Cancer and Haematology Centre, Churchill Hospital, Oxford, Oxfordshire, UK
Krupesh Haria
Affiliation:
Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Surgery and Cancer, Radiotherapy Department, Portsmouth, Hampshire, UK
*
Correspondence to: David Flinton, Department of Radiography, Division of Midwifery and Radiography, City, University of London, London, UK. Tel: 0207 040 5688. Fax: 00442070405690. E-mail: d.m.flinton@city.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Information is key to patient informed choice and the internet is currently a major source of health information for adults in the UK. In order for the users to make use of the information it must be presented in a way that the user can understand. This depends on a number of factors one being that the document is written at the right level to be understood by the reader, readability.

Aim

The aim of this study was to assess the readability of radiotherapy-related documents on the internet and compare their levels to published norms.

Method

An internet search was undertaken using Google, to identify UK-based literature. Once identified documents were downloaded into Word and cleaned of punctuation other than that at the end of the sentence, documents were then analysed by the software package Readability Studio.

Results and conclusions

Documents tended to be written at too high a reading level, but the reading level had improved from a similar study conducted in 2006. The level of readability appears to show a relationship to the use of passive voice, which was very variable in the sample collected and reduction in the use of passive voice could help with the readability of the information.

Keywords

health literacyinternetpassive voiceradiotherapyreadability
Type
Original Article
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 142 - 150
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Office for National Statistics. Statistical bulletin. Internet access – households and individuals: 2016. What the internet is used for and types of purchases made by adults (aged 16 or over) 2016. Accessed on 20th August 2017.Google Scholar
2. Dutton, W, Blank, G. Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain 2011. Oxford, England: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 2011.Google Scholar
3.NHS England. The information standard Principles. https://www.england.nhs.uk/tis/about/the-info-standard/. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.Google Scholar
4.NHS England. The National Cancer Patient Experience Survey 2015. Summary of key national and local results, 2016. https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/20160713-CPES-2015-Presentation_revised.pdf. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.Google Scholar
5. Kuczera, M, Field, S, Windisch, H C. Building Skills for All: A Review of England. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD, 2016.Google Scholar
6. Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Inspiring Growth. CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2015. London: CBI, 2015.Google Scholar
7.Government Digital Services. Content design: planning, writing and managing content, 2016. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/content-design/writing-for-gov-uk. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.Google Scholar
8. Wolfe, B, Dobres, J, Kosovicheva, A, Rosenholtz, R, Reimer, B. Age-related differences in the legibility of degraded text. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications 2016; 1 (22): 1–13.Google Scholar
9. Waller, E. What Makes a Good Document? The Criteria We Use. Technical Paper 2. Simplification Centre. Reading, UK: University of Reading, 2011.Google Scholar
10. Kang, T, Elhadad, N, Weng, C. Initial readability assessment of clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 687–696.Google Scholar
11. Janan, D, Wray, D. Readability: the limitations of an approach through formulae. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester, Manchester, England, 2012.Google Scholar
12. Crossley, S A, Skalicky, S, Dascalu, M, McNamara, D S, Kyle, K. Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: new approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Proces 2017; 54 (5–6): 340–359.Google Scholar
13. Bailin, A, Grafstein, A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Lang Commun 2001; 21: 285–301.Google Scholar
14. Doak, C C, Doak, L G, Root, J H. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996.Google Scholar
15. Flinton, D. Readability and legibility of printed information leaflets in radiotherapy. J Radioth Pract 2008; 7: 186–187.Google Scholar
16. Zouh, S, Jeong, H, Green, P A. How consistent are the best-known readability equations in estimating the readability of design standards? IEEE Trans Prof Commun 2017; 60 (1): 97–111.Google Scholar
17. Wang, L-W, Miller, M J, Schmitt, M R, Wen, F K. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Soc Admin Pharm 2013; 9 (5): 503–516.Google Scholar
18. Johnson, K. Readability, 1998. http://www.timetabler.com/readable.pdf. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.Google Scholar
19.Plain English Campaign. How to write medical information in plain English. Plain English Campaign, 2001. http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/medicalguide.pdf. Accessed on 20th August 2017.Google Scholar
20. Blair, J. Assessing the value of the internet in health improvement. Nursing Times 2004; 100 (35): 28–30.Google Scholar
21. Penson, R T, Benson, R C, Parles, K, Chabner, B A, Lynch, T J Jr. Virtual connections: internet health care. Oncologist 2002; 7: 555–568.Google Scholar
22. Hansberry, D R, Agarwal, N, Baker, S R. Health literacy and online educational resources: an opportunity to educate patients. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 111–116.Google Scholar
23.International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. Criteria for judging the quality of patient decision aids, 2005. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_checklist.pdf. Accessed on 20th August 2017.Google Scholar
24. Smith, S. Guide to appraising health information. Patient information forum, 2010. https://www.pifonline.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/PIF-Guide-Appraising-Health-Information-2010.pdf. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.Google Scholar
25. Hansberry, D R, Ann John, A, John, E, Agarwal, N, Gonzales, S F, Baker, S R. A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.Org. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202 (3): 566–575.Google Scholar
26. Fitzsimmons, P R, Michael, B D, Hulley, J L, Scott, G O. A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2010; 2010 (40): 292–296.Google Scholar
27. Trivedi, H, Trivedi, A, Hannan, M F. Readability and comprehensibility of over-the counter medication labels. Renal Failure 2014; 36 (3): 473–477.Google Scholar
28. Weiss, K D, Vargas, C R, Ho., O A, Chuang, D J, Weiss, J, Lee, B T. Readability analysis of online resources related to lung cancer. J Surg Res 2016; 206 (1): 90–97.Google Scholar
29. Narwani, V, Nalamada, K, Lee, M, Kothari, P, Lakhani, R. Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to laryngeal cancer. Head Neck 2015; 28 (4): 601–605.Google Scholar
30. Janan, D, Wray, D. Readability: the limitations of an approach through formulae. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, 2012. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/213296.pdf. Accessed 24th May 2017.Google Scholar
31. Harwood, A, Harrison, J E. How readable are orthodontic patient information leaflets? J Orthod 2004; 31 (3): 210–219.Google Scholar
32. Pothier, L, Day, R, Harris, C, Pothier, D D. Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a Speech and Language Therapy Department. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2008; 43 (6): 712–772.Google Scholar