Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Colorectal Disease
Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease 12/2016

01-12-2016 | Original Article

Colorectal cancer screening patient education materials—how effective is online health information?

Authors: Elizabeth Sheena John, Ann M. John, David R. Hansberry, Prashant J. Thomas, Prateek Agarwal, Christopher Deitch, Sita Chokhavatia

Published in: International Journal of Colorectal Disease | Issue 12/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Patients screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently turn to the Internet to improve their understanding of tests used for detection, including colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and CT colonography. It was of interest to determine the quality and readability levels of online health information.

Methods

The screening tools were googled, and the top 20 results of each test were analyzed for readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability. The 80 articles excluded scientific literature and blogs. We used ten validated readability scales to measure grade levels, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s honestly statistical different (HSD) post hoc analyses to determine any statistically significant differences among the four diagnostic tests. The LIDA tool assessed overall quality by measuring accessibility, usability, and reliability.

Results

The 80 articles were written at an 11.7 grade level, with CT colonography articles written at significantly higher levels than FOBT articles, F(3, 75) = 3.07, p = 0.033. LIDA showed moderate percentages in accessibility (83.9 %), usability (73.0 %), and reliability (75.9 %).

Conclusions

Online health information about CRC screening tools are written at higher levels than the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) recommended third to seventh grade levels. More patients could benefit from this modality of information if it were written at a level and quality that would better facilitate understanding.
Literature
1.
2.
Charnock D. (1998) The DISCERN handbook: quality critera for consumer health information on treatment choices
3.
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 CrossRefPubMed
4.
Coleman M, Liau TL (1975) A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 60:2CrossRef
5.
Colaco M, Svider PF, Agarwal N, Eloy JA, Jackson IM (2012) Readability Assessment of Online Urology Patient Education Materials. J Urol.
6.
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S (2008) Readability of patient education materials from the American Academy of Orthopaedic surgeons and pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America web sites. J Bone Joint Surg Am 90(1):199–204CrossRefPubMed
7.
Paasche-Orlow MKTH, Brancati FL (2003) Readability standards for informedconsent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med 348(8):721–726CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
O’Connor A, Rostom A, Fiset V (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ 319(7212):731–734CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Berland GK, Elliott MN, Morales LS, Algazy JI, Kravitz RL, Broder MS, Kanouse DE, Munoz JA, Puyol J, Lara M, Watkins KE, Yang H, McGlynn EA (2001) Health information on the internet accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish. JAMA 285(20):2612–2621CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
Sudore R, Mehta K, Simonsick E, Harris T, Newman A, Satterfield S (2006) Limited literacy in older people and disparities in health and healthcare access. J Am Geriatr Soc 54(5):770–776CrossRefPubMed
12.
McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12:8
13.
Baker DW, Wolf MS, Feinglass J, Thompson JA, Gazmararian JA, Huang J (2007) Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Arch Intern Med 167(14):1503–1509CrossRefPubMed
14.
Chall JS (1995) Readability revisited: the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline Books Cambridge, MA
15.
Brown JB, Weston WW, Stewart MA (1989) Patient-centred interviewing part II: finding common ground. Can Fam Physician 35:153–157PubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Bouton ME, Shirah GR, Nodora J, Pond E, Hsu CH, Klemens AE, et al. (2012) Implementation of educational video improves patient understanding of basic breast cancer concepts in an undereducated county hospital population. J Surg Oncol 105(1):48–54. doi:10.​1002/​jso.​22046 CrossRefPubMed
17.
Agarwal N, Chaudhari A, Hansberry DR, Tomei KL, Prestigiacomo CJ (2013) A comparative analysis of neurosurgical online education materials to assess patient comprehension. J Clin Neurosci. doi:10.​1016/​j.​jocn.​2012.​10.​047
18.
Agarwal N, Sarris C, Hansberry DR, Lin MJ, Barrese JC, Prestigiacomo CJ (2013) Quality of patient education materials for rehabilitation after neurological surgery. NeuroRehabilitation 32(4):817–821. doi:10.​3233/​nre-130905 PubMed
19.
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. doi:10.​1177/​0194599812456152​
20.
Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Gonzales SF, Baker SR (2013) Are we effectively informing patients? A quantitative analysis of online patient education resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology. Am J Neuroradiol.in press.
21.
Hansberry DR, Kraus C, Agarwal N, Baker SR, Gonzales SF (2013) Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: a comparative analysis of online patient education resources. CardioVasc Int Radiol. in press.
22.
Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, Shah R, Schmitt PJ, Baredes S, Setzen M, et al. (2013) Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope. doi:10.​1002/​lary.​24261
23.
Hansberry DR, Suresh R, Agarwal N, Heary RF, Goldstein IM (2013) Quality assessment of online patient education resources for peripheral neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst 18(1):44–47. doi:10.​1111/​jns5.​12006 CrossRefPubMed
24.
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​ CrossRefPubMed
25.
Misra P, Agarwal N, Kasabwala K, Hansberry DR, Setzen M, Eloy JA (2012) Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the american academy of facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (AAFPRS). Laryngoscope. doi:10.​1002/​lary.​23574 PubMed
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R (1996) Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Couns 27(2):123–134CrossRefPubMed
31.
The Minervation validation instrument for healthcare websites (LIDA tool) [database on the Internet]2007. Accessed: September 2012
32.
33.
Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs (1999) Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. 281(6):552–7.
34.
Covering kids & families. Health literacy style manual 2005.
35.
Simply put—a guide for creating easy-to-undestand materials. 3 ed. Atlanta, Georgia: US Department of Health and Human Services—Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); 2009.
36.
37.
Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM (2005) Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health 30(3):213–219CrossRefPubMed
38.
D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J (2001) The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the world wide web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155(7):807–812CrossRefPubMed
39.
Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52(3):134–149CrossRefPubMed
40.
41.
Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD (1998) Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 48(3):151–162CrossRefPubMed
42.
Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P, Paiva D, Faulkner M, Swanson J (1996) Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res 9(3):139–143CrossRefPubMed
43.
Baker DW, Parker RM, Williams MV, Clark WS, Nurss J (1997) The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services. Am J Public Health 87(6):1027–1030CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Colorectal cancer screening patient education materials—how effective is online health information?
Authors
Elizabeth Sheena John
Ann M. John
David R. Hansberry
Prashant J. Thomas
Prateek Agarwal
Christopher Deitch
Sita Chokhavatia
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
International Journal of Colorectal Disease / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0179-1958
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1262
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00384-016-2652-0

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

International Journal of Colorectal Disease 12/2016 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: Association between pathologic features of peripheral nerves and postoperative anal function after neoadjuvant therapy for low rectal cancer

Original Article

Rectal prolapse traumatizes rectal neuromuscular microstructure explaining persistent rectal dysfunction

Original Article

Association between pathologic features of peripheral nerves and postoperative anal function after neoadjuvant therapy for low rectal cancer

Original Article

Association between diverticular disease and Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: a 13-year nationwide population-based cohort study

Letter to the Editor

Pudendal nerve testing

Original Article

Prophylactic total gastrectomy in the management of hereditary tumor syndromes