Patient self‐reported utility of hand surgery online patient education materials. (30th August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Roberts, Heather J.; Zhang, Dafang; Earp, Brandon E.; Blazar, Philip; Dyer, George S.M.
• Is Part Of: Musculoskeletal care. Volume 16:Number 4(2018)
• Page Start: 458
• Page End: 462
• Publication Date: 2018-08-30
• Subjects: American Society for Surgery of the Hand -- ASSH -- internet -- patient education -- readability -- reading grade level; Musculoskeletal system -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Rheumatology -- Periodicals; 616.7005
• DOI: 10.1002/msc.1360
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1478-2189

Abstract

Abstract: 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.