Julian Risch, Konrad Hügelmann, Leonhard Buck, Hans-Christoph von Knobloch, Jakob Kohler, Reha-Baris Incesu, Marie-Luise Weiss, Philipp Nuhn, Jonas Jarczyk, Severin Rodler
{"title":"Readability of Prostate Cancer Patient Education Materials: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Readability Metrics.","authors":"Julian Risch, Konrad Hügelmann, Leonhard Buck, Hans-Christoph von Knobloch, Jakob Kohler, Reha-Baris Incesu, Marie-Luise Weiss, Philipp Nuhn, Jonas Jarczyk, Severin Rodler","doi":"10.1159/000548884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Patient education materials (PEMs) play a vital role in ensuring patients understand their medical conditions and treatment options. In prostate cancer, complex medical terminology can hamper comprehension and informed decision-making. This study evaluates the readability of prostate cancer PEMs to determine if they meet recommended standards for lay audiences.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A selection of standardized prostate cancer PEMs, including standard surgical consent forms and patient brochures from major German cancer organizations, was analyzed. Readability was assessed using established metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of 70 (at or below a seventh-grade reading level) and the other readability indexes ≤7, following European Union recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs of both surgical consent forms and patient brochures did not meet the recommended thresholds set by the European Union for layperson summaries. The median FRES for consent forms was 25.9 (SD: 1.52), ranging from 24.3 (prostate biopsy) to 28.0 (open RPx). Patient brochures showed a median FRES of 23.2 (SD: 2.87), with scores of 23.2 (German Cancer Aid), 22.5 (DKFZ), and 28.9 (S3-Guidelines). Section-specific values varied, with the highest FRES observed in the \"Basic Explanation and Screening\" section of the S3-Guidelines (39.0, SD: 7.09) and the lowest in the \"Follow-Up\" section of the German Cancer Aid brochure (15.8, SD: 10.35). All grade-level metrics (FKGL, GFS, SMOG, CLI, ARI) exceeded the recommended level of grade 7.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The readability of prostate cancer PEMs in Germany falls short of recommended thresholds for lay comprehension. To enhance clarity and accessibility, the use of automated readability tools and standardized benchmarks (e.g., FRES ≥70, grade level ≤7) is recommended. Involving multidisciplinary teams may further support the development of patient-centered content. Future research should combine readability metrics with patient feedback to evaluate real-world comprehension and usability.</p>","PeriodicalId":23414,"journal":{"name":"Urologia Internationalis","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia Internationalis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000548884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objective: Patient education materials (PEMs) play a vital role in ensuring patients understand their medical conditions and treatment options. In prostate cancer, complex medical terminology can hamper comprehension and informed decision-making. This study evaluates the readability of prostate cancer PEMs to determine if they meet recommended standards for lay audiences.
Methods: A selection of standardized prostate cancer PEMs, including standard surgical consent forms and patient brochures from major German cancer organizations, was analyzed. Readability was assessed using established metrics, including the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of 70 (at or below a seventh-grade reading level) and the other readability indexes ≤7, following European Union recommendations.
Results: The readability of prostate cancer PEMs of both surgical consent forms and patient brochures did not meet the recommended thresholds set by the European Union for layperson summaries. The median FRES for consent forms was 25.9 (SD: 1.52), ranging from 24.3 (prostate biopsy) to 28.0 (open RPx). Patient brochures showed a median FRES of 23.2 (SD: 2.87), with scores of 23.2 (German Cancer Aid), 22.5 (DKFZ), and 28.9 (S3-Guidelines). Section-specific values varied, with the highest FRES observed in the "Basic Explanation and Screening" section of the S3-Guidelines (39.0, SD: 7.09) and the lowest in the "Follow-Up" section of the German Cancer Aid brochure (15.8, SD: 10.35). All grade-level metrics (FKGL, GFS, SMOG, CLI, ARI) exceeded the recommended level of grade 7.
Conclusion: The readability of prostate cancer PEMs in Germany falls short of recommended thresholds for lay comprehension. To enhance clarity and accessibility, the use of automated readability tools and standardized benchmarks (e.g., FRES ≥70, grade level ≤7) is recommended. Involving multidisciplinary teams may further support the development of patient-centered content. Future research should combine readability metrics with patient feedback to evaluate real-world comprehension and usability.
期刊介绍:
Concise but fully substantiated international reports of clinically oriented research into science and current management of urogenital disorders form the nucleus of original as well as basic research papers. These are supplemented by up-to-date reviews by international experts on the state-of-the-art of key topics of clinical urological practice. Essential topics receiving regular coverage include the introduction of new techniques and instrumentation as well as the evaluation of new functional tests and diagnostic methods. Special attention is given to advances in surgical techniques and clinical oncology. The regular publication of selected case reports represents the great variation in urological disease and illustrates treatment solutions in singular cases.