Davis A Hartnett, Alexander P Philips, Alan H Daniels, Brad D Blankenhorn
{"title":"足踝手术患者在线教育材料的可读性。","authors":"Davis A Hartnett, Alexander P Philips, Alan H Daniels, Brad D Blankenhorn","doi":"10.1177/19386400221116463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background</i>. Online health education resources are frequently accessed by patients seeking information on orthopaedic conditions and procedures. The objectives of this study were to assess the readability of information provided by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and compare current levels of readability with previous online material. <i>Methods</i>. This study examined 115 articles classified as \"Conditions\" or \"Treatments\" on FootCareMD.org. Readability was assessed using the 6 readability assessment tools: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and the Automated Readability Index. <i>Results</i>. The mean readability score across all metrics ranged from 9.1 to 12.1, corresponding to a 9th- to 12th-grade reading level, with a mean FKGL of 9.2 ± SD 1.1 (range: 6.3-15.0). No articles were written below the recommended US sixth-grade reading level, with only 3 articles at or below an eighth-grade level. Treatment articles had higher mean readability grade levels than condition articles (P = .03). <i>Conclusion</i>. Although the volume and quality of the AOFAS resource Web site has increased, readability of information has worsened since 2008 and remains higher than the recommended reading level for optimal comprehension by the general population.<b>Levels of Evidence:</b> Level IV:Retrospective quantitative analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":73046,"journal":{"name":"Foot & ankle specialist","volume":" ","pages":"9-18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Readability of Online Foot and Ankle Surgery Patient Education Materials.\",\"authors\":\"Davis A Hartnett, Alexander P Philips, Alan H Daniels, Brad D Blankenhorn\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19386400221116463\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background</i>. Online health education resources are frequently accessed by patients seeking information on orthopaedic conditions and procedures. The objectives of this study were to assess the readability of information provided by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and compare current levels of readability with previous online material. <i>Methods</i>. This study examined 115 articles classified as \\\"Conditions\\\" or \\\"Treatments\\\" on FootCareMD.org. Readability was assessed using the 6 readability assessment tools: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and the Automated Readability Index. <i>Results</i>. The mean readability score across all metrics ranged from 9.1 to 12.1, corresponding to a 9th- to 12th-grade reading level, with a mean FKGL of 9.2 ± SD 1.1 (range: 6.3-15.0). No articles were written below the recommended US sixth-grade reading level, with only 3 articles at or below an eighth-grade level. Treatment articles had higher mean readability grade levels than condition articles (P = .03). <i>Conclusion</i>. Although the volume and quality of the AOFAS resource Web site has increased, readability of information has worsened since 2008 and remains higher than the recommended reading level for optimal comprehension by the general population.<b>Levels of Evidence:</b> Level IV:Retrospective quantitative analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73046,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Foot & ankle specialist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9-18\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Foot & ankle specialist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400221116463\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foot & ankle specialist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19386400221116463","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Readability of Online Foot and Ankle Surgery Patient Education Materials.
Background. Online health education resources are frequently accessed by patients seeking information on orthopaedic conditions and procedures. The objectives of this study were to assess the readability of information provided by the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) and compare current levels of readability with previous online material. Methods. This study examined 115 articles classified as "Conditions" or "Treatments" on FootCareMD.org. Readability was assessed using the 6 readability assessment tools: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, Coleman-Liau Index, and the Automated Readability Index. Results. The mean readability score across all metrics ranged from 9.1 to 12.1, corresponding to a 9th- to 12th-grade reading level, with a mean FKGL of 9.2 ± SD 1.1 (range: 6.3-15.0). No articles were written below the recommended US sixth-grade reading level, with only 3 articles at or below an eighth-grade level. Treatment articles had higher mean readability grade levels than condition articles (P = .03). Conclusion. Although the volume and quality of the AOFAS resource Web site has increased, readability of information has worsened since 2008 and remains higher than the recommended reading level for optimal comprehension by the general population.Levels of Evidence: Level IV:Retrospective quantitative analysis.