Premium
Patient self‐reported utility of hand surgery online patient education materials
Author(s) -
Roberts Heather J.,
Zhang Dafang,
Earp Brandon E.,
Blazar Philip,
Dyer George S.M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
musculoskeletal care
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.628
H-Index - 28
eISSN - 1557-0681
pISSN - 1478-2189
DOI - 10.1002/msc.1360
Subject(s) - readability , medicine , patient education , context (archaeology) , clarity , medical diagnosis , reading (process) , novelty , scope (computer science) , usability , medical education , physical therapy , medical physics , family medicine , psychology , pathology , computer science , paleontology , social psychology , biochemistry , chemistry , human–computer interaction , programming language , political science , law , biology
Objective: Online patient education materials in orthopaedic surgery are consistently written above the recommended grade level. However, no algorithmic measure of readability has been validated in a medical context. The primary objective of the present study was to determine whether Flesch–Kincaid readability scores correlate with patient self‐reported utility of online education materials from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH). Methods: This was a prospective survey study of 35 patients with one of five common upper extremity diagnoses. Study outcomes included self‐reported utility, understandability, clarity, novelty and scope of the information of the ASSH online patient education material. Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease were calculated for each article and correlated with self‐reported utility. Results: The majority of patients found the articles useful, understandable and clear. Self‐reported utility was not correlated with Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level ( ρ = 0.017) or Flesch Reading Ease (ρ = −0.020). Patients with high school education or below found the articles less useful and more difficult to understand than those with post‐secondary education. Conclusions: Flesch–Kincaid readability scores do not correlate with self‐reported utility of ASSH online patient education materials. In the evaluation of these materials, metrics other than algorithmic readability scores should be considered.