Patient Information in Graves' Disease and Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy: Readability Assessment of Online Resources
Patient Information in Graves' Disease and Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy: Readability Assessment of Online Resources
复制标题
DOI：
10.1089/thy.2013.0252
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
6.6
通讯作者：
Durrani, Omar M.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Edmunds, Matthew R.;Denniston, Alastair K.;Durrani, Omar M.
背景：对于希望更多地了解自己疾病的患者来说，互联网是一个重要的信息来源。众所周知，普通民众的健康素养很低，美国卫生与公众服务部(USDHHS)建议以患者为导向的文学作品应在四至六年级的阅读水平上撰写，以优化可理解性。在这项研究中，我们评估了专门针对Graves病(GD)和甲状腺相关眼病(TAO)的在线文献的可读性。方法：分析Google搜索返回的前20个英文GD患者资源和前30个对应的TAO资源的可读性。分别使用谷歌搜索词格雷夫斯病和甲状腺相关眼病来识别网页。删除了无关文本(例如，超链接、从属关系、免责声明)。使用Flesch阅读轻松评分、Flesch-Kincaid等级水平、官样文章简易测量和Gunning-Fog指数四个有效测量对相关文本进行可读性分析。可读性与USDHHS标准进行比较。结果：总体字数中位数为990个(IQR为846,195-3867)，平均每句为18个(IQR为4.0，7.5-28)。Flesch阅读舒适度得分中位数为46(IQR 13，24-)，Flesch-Kincaid 11级(IQR 3.0，7.2-17)，官样文章简易测量13(IQR 2.0，9.6-17)，Gunning-Fog Index 13(IQR 3.0，9.2-19)，每个等同于11年级的阅读水平和USDHHS分类的难度。没有一个被评价的网页的可读性得分与公布的准则相符。每个网页的来源国、网站商业状况或主要集中在GD或TAO的网页没有显著差异。结论：针对GD和TAO患者的在线材料的可读性得分低于推荐值。筛选这些在线材料，以及随后的修订，对于增加未来患者的知识、满意度和依从性至关重要。
Background: The Internet is a vital source of information for patients hoping to learn more about their disease. Health literacy of the general population is known to be poor, with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) recommending that patient-oriented literature be written at a fourth- to sixth-grade reading level to optimize comprehensibility. In this study we assessed the readability of online literature specifically for Graves' disease (GD) and thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). Methods: Readability of the content of the top 20 English-language GD patient-oriented online resources and top 30 of the equivalent TAO resources returned by Google search was analyzed. Web pages were identified using the Google search terms Graves' disease and Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy, respectively. Extraneous text (e.g., hyperlinks, affiliations, disclaimers) was removed. Relevant text proceeded to readability analysis using four validated measures: Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning-Fog Index. Readability was compared with USDHHS standards. Results: Overall, median word count (with interquartile range [IQR] and range) was 990 (IQR 846, 195-3867), with a median of 18 words per sentence (IQR 4.0, 7.5-28). Median Flesch Reading Ease Score was 46 (IQR 13, 24-64), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 11 (IQR 3.0, 7.2-17), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook 13 (IQR 2.0, 9.6-17), and Gunning-Fog Index 13 (IQR 3.0, 9.2-19), each equivalent to a reading level of >11th grade and difficult on the USDHHS classification. None of the web pages evaluated had readability scores in accordance with published guidelines. There was no significant difference with the country of origin of each web page, website commercial status, or with pages predominantly focused on GD or TAO. Conclusions: Readability scores for online GD and TAO patient-focused materials are inferior to those recommended. Screening of this online material, as well as subsequent revision, is crucial to increase future patient knowledge, satisfaction, and compliance.