Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Readability of internet-based patient information for radiotherapy patients

  • David Flinton (a1), Manrita K. Singh (a2) and Krupesh Haria (a3)
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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
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
References
Hide All
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.
2. Dutton, W, Blank, G. Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain 2011. Oxford, England: Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, 2011.
3.NHS England. The information standard Principles. https://www.england.nhs.uk/tis/about/the-info-standard/. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.
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.
5. Kuczera, M, Field, S, Windisch, H C. Building Skills for All: A Review of England. OECD Skills Studies. Paris: OECD, 2016.
6. Confederation of British Industry (CBI). Inspiring Growth. CBI/Pearson Education and Skills Survey 2015. London: CBI, 2015.
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.
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): 113.
9. Waller, E. What Makes a Good Document? The Criteria We Use. Technical Paper 2. Simplification Centre. Reading, UK: University of Reading, 2011.
10. Kang, T, Elhadad, N, Weng, C. Initial readability assessment of clinical trial eligibility criteria. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2015; 2015: 687696.
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.
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): 340359.
13. Bailin, A, Grafstein, A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Lang Commun 2001; 21: 285301.
14. Doak, C C, Doak, L G, Root, J H. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills, 2nd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 1996.
15. Flinton, D. Readability and legibility of printed information leaflets in radiotherapy. J Radioth Pract 2008; 7: 186187.
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): 97111.
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): 503516.
18. Johnson, K. Readability, 1998. http://www.timetabler.com/readable.pdf. Accessed on 22nd August 2017.
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.
20. Blair, J. Assessing the value of the internet in health improvement. Nursing Times 2004; 100 (35): 2830.
21. Penson, R T, Benson, R C, Parles, K, Chabner, B A, Lynch, T J Jr. Virtual connections: internet health care. Oncologist 2002; 7: 555568.
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: 111116.
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.
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.
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): 566575.
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): 292296.
27. Trivedi, H, Trivedi, A, Hannan, M F. Readability and comprehensibility of over-the counter medication labels. Renal Failure 2014; 36 (3): 473477.
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): 9097.
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): 601605.
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.
31. Harwood, A, Harrison, J E. How readable are orthodontic patient information leaflets? J Orthod 2004; 31 (3): 210219.
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): 712772.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice
  • ISSN: 1460-3969
  • EISSN: 1467-1131
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-radiotherapy-in-practice
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed