advertisement
Abstract #99133 Published in IGR 22-4
Readability and Suitability of Online Glaucoma Patient Education Materials
Martin CA; Khan S; Lee R; Do A; Sridhar J; Crowell E; Bowden EOphthalmology. Glaucoma 2022; 5: 525-530
PURPOSE: To assess the quality, content, readability, and accountability of information found online for glaucoma. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: 13 websites containing glaucoma patient education materials were analyzed for this study. METHODS: An online Google search was conducted using the keyword glaucoma. 13 medical website results were selected for analysis. Each website was assessed by three independent reviewers for suitability, readability, and accountability. The standardized Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tool was used to evaluate the quality and content of information on each website. The Flesch reading ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index (SMOG), Automated Readability Index (ARI), and Linsear Write Formula (LWF) scores were used to assess readability of the websites. The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Accountability Benchmarks were used to evaluate each website's accountability. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: SAM score, FRE, FKGL, CLI, SMOG, ARI, LWF scores, and JAMA Accountability Benchmarks. RESULTS: The average SAM score for all the websites included in this study was 18 points out of a possible 34 points. Eyewiki.org was the lowest scoring website (11.7 ± 0.6 points), while aao.org and nei.nih.gov were the highest scoring websites (26.0 ± 1.0 points and 26.0 ± 2.6 points, respectively). Three content graders in this study were in moderate agreement (kappa statistic = 0.59). The average Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scores among all websites was 47.0 (95% confidence interval (CI), 39.3 - 54.7). The average reading grade score among all websites was 11.2 (95% CI, 10.0 - 12.4). Two of the thirteen websites (15.4%) satisfied all 4 JAMA accountability criteria. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the content and quality of freely available online glaucoma education material. The material is generally either not suitable or only adequate for use. Most websites reviewed are written at a reading grade level higher than that recommended for patient education materials.
Mitchel and Shannon Wong Eye Institute, Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA.
Full article