Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Health Literacy in Vascular and Interventional Radiology: A Comparative Analysis of Online Patient Education Resources

  • Laboratory Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Internet is frequently accessed by patients as a resource for medical knowledge. However, the provided material is typically written at a level well above the recommended 7th grade level. A clear understanding of the capabilities, limitations, risks, and benefits of interventional radiology by patients, both current and prospective, is hindered when the textual information offered to the public is pitched at a level of sophistication too high for general comprehension.

Methods

In January 2013, all 25 patient education resources from the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology Society of Europe (CIRSE) Web site (http://www.cirse.org) and all 31 resources from the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) Web site (http://www.sirweb.org) were analyzed for their specific level of readability using ten quantitative scales: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, Gunning fog index, New Fog Count, Coleman–Liau index, FORCAST formula, Fry graph, Raygor Readability Estimate, and New Dale–Chall.

Results

Collectively, the patient education resources on the CIRSE Web site are written at the 12.3 grade level, while the resources on the SIR Web site are written at the 14.5 grade level.

Conclusion

Educational health care materials available on both the CIRSE and the SIR Web sites are presented in language in the aggregate that could be too difficult for many lay people to fully understand. Given the complex nature of vascular and interventional radiology, it may be advantageous to rewrite these educational resources at a lower reading level to increase comprehension.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fox S (2011) The Social Life of Health Information, 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Social-Life-of-Health-Info.aspx

  2. Diaz JA, Griffith RA, Ng JJ, Reinert SE, Friedmann PD, Moulton AW (2002) Patients’ Use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 17:180–185

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, Dumitru RC, Pudule I, Santana S et al (2007) European citizens’ use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health. 7:53. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-53

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, Croyle RT, Arora NK, Rimer BK et al (2005) Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 165(22):2618–2624. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.22.2618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Purcell GP, Wilson P, Delamothe T (2002) The quality of health information on the Internet. BMJ 324(7337):557–558

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. HLS-EU Consortium (2012) Final report—executive summary of Health Literacy Survey, European Union. http://www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/file?uuid=b994bc0b-bf89-477c-af47-125cfbea4666&owner=5113a977-24b4-40c8-96e3-4b38cf5e99f5

  7. Commission of the European Communities (2002)

  8. US Department of Health and Human Services; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion; Health Communication Activities (2008) America’s health literacy: why we need accessible health information. http://www.health.gov/communication/literacy/issuebrief/

  9. Nasser S, Mullan J, Bajorek B (2012) Assessing the quality, suitability and readability of Internet-based health information about warfarin for patients. Australas Med J 5:194–203. doi:10.4066/AMJ.2012862

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2010) Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2572–2580. doi:10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Weis BD (2003) Health literacy: a manual for clinicians. American Medical Association; American Medical Foundation, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  12. National Library of Medicine; National Institutes of Health. How to write easy-to-read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html

  13. Eloy JA, Li S, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S et al (2012) Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(5):848–854. doi:10.1177/0194599812456152

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147(3):466–471. doi:10.1177/0194599812442783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Misra P, Agarwal N, Kasabwala K, Hansberry DR, Setzen M, Eloy JA (2013) Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Laryngoscope 123(1):90–96. doi:10.1002/lary.23574

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kasabwala K, Misra P, Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Baredes S, Setzen M et al (2013) Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 3(4):325–333. doi:10.1002/alr.21097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Cherla DV, Sanghvi S, Choudhry OJ, Liu JK, Eloy JA (2012) Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to endoscopic sinus surgery. Laryngoscope 122(8):1649–1654. doi:10.1002/lary.23309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Colaco M, Svider PF, Agarwal N, Eloy JA, Jackson IM (2012) Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol 189(3):1048–1052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Svider PF, Agarwal N, Choudhry OJ, Hajart AF, Baredes S, Liu JK et al (2012) Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology–head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 34(1):31–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Misra P, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Eloy J, Liu J (2012) Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors. J Neurooncol 109(3):573–580. doi:10.1007/s11060-012-0930-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS et al (2001) Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285(20):2612–2621. doi:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11368735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kincaid JP (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas: (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Chief of naval technical training, Naval air station memphis, Millington, TN; Springfield, VA

  24. McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading a new readability formula. J Reading 12:8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Coleman M, Liau TL (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gunning R (1952) The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. Chall JS (1995) Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  28. Caylor JS, Fox LC, Ford JP (1973) Methodologies for determining reading requirements of military occupational specialties. Technical report 73-5. Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria

    Google Scholar 

  29. Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Reading 11:4

    Google Scholar 

  30. Raygor AL (ed) (1977) The Raygor readability estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. Paper presented at national reading conference, Clemson

  31. Martino A (2013) Pointing the way. ACR Bull 68:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  32. Caiata-Zufferey M, Abraham A, Sommerhalder K, Schulz PJ (2010) Online health information seeking in the context of the medical consultation in Switzerland. Qual Health Res 20:1050–1061. doi:10.1177/1049732310368404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Patel PP, Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ciminello FS (2011) Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions. J Craniofac Surg 22:1179–1182. doi:10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821c00e400001665-201107000-00003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Sabourin V, Tomei KL, Prestigiacomo CJ (2013) A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med 173(13):1257–1259. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Katz MG, Kripalani S, Weiss BD (2006) Use of pictorial aids in medication instructions: a review of the literature. Am J Health Syst Pharm 63:2391–2397

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The authors have no personal financial or institutional interest in any of the drugs, material, or devices described in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA

    David R. Hansberry, Carl Kraus, Stephen R. Baker & Sharon F. Gonzales

  2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA

    Nitin Agarwal

  3. Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, 150 Bergen Street, Room C320, Newark, NJ, 07101-1709, USA

    Sharon F. Gonzales

Authors
  1. David R. Hansberry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carl Kraus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nitin Agarwal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stephen R. Baker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sharon F. Gonzales
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharon F. Gonzales.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hansberry, D.R., Kraus, C., Agarwal, N. et al. Health Literacy in Vascular and Interventional Radiology: A Comparative Analysis of Online Patient Education Resources. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37, 1034–1040 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0752-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-013-0752-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation