Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia.

Abstract

Purpose: Guidelines recommend that health-related information for patients should be written at or below the sixth-grade level. We sought to evaluate the readability level and quality of online patient education materials regarding epidural and spinal anesthesia.

Methods: We evaluated webpages with content written specifically regarding either spinal or epidural anesthesia, identified using 11 relevant search terms, with seven commonly used readability formulas: Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale-Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed the quality of the reading materials using the Brief DISCERN tool.

Results: We analyzed 261 webpages. The mean (standard deviation) readability scores were: FKGL = 8.8 (1.9), GFI = 11.2 (2.2), CLI = 10.3 (1.9), ARI = 8.1 (2.2), SMOG = 11.6 (1.6), FRE = 55.7 (10.8), and NDC = 5.4 (1.0). The mean grade level was higher than the recommended sixth-grade level when calculated with six of the seven readability formulas. The average Brief DISCERN score was 16.0.

Conclusion: Readability levels of online patient education materials pertaining to epidural and spinal anesthesia are higher than recommended. When we evaluated the quality of the information using a validated tool, the materials were found to be just below the threshold of what is considered good quality. Authors of educational materials should provide not only readable but also good-quality information to enhance patient understanding.