Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T23:06:15.944Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Readability and quality of online patient health information on parotidectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2023

J Y Tan Open the ORCID record for J Y Tan [Opens in a new window] ,
Y C Tan  and
D Yap
J Y Tan*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals, Leeds, UK
Y C Tan
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopaedics, University Hospital Lewisham, London, UK
D Yap
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
*
Corresponding author: Dr Jia Yin Tan; Email: jia.tan@doctors.org.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Complications of parotidectomy can have a massive impact on patients’ quality of life. This study aimed to evaluate the readability and quality of online health information on parotidectomy.

Method

The search terms ‘parotidectomy’, ‘parotid surgery’, ‘parotidectomy patient information’ and ‘parotid surgery patient information’ were parsed through three popular search engines.

Results

The websites were analysed using readability scores of the Flesch Reading Ease test and the Gunning Fog Index. The DISCERN instrument was used to assess quality and reliability. The average Flesch Reading Ease score was 50.2 ± 9.0, indicating that the materials were fairly difficult to read, the Gunning Fog Index score showed that the patient health information was suitable for an individual above 12th grade level, and the DISCERN score indicated that the online patient health information had fair quality. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed a significant difference in Flesch Reading Ease and DISCERN tool scores according to website category (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Current online patient health information on parotidectomy is too difficult for the public to understand, and it exceeds the reading levels recommended by Health Education England and the American Medical Association.

Keywords

Decision makinginformed consenthealth literacycomprehensionvocabulary
Type
Main Article
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 137 , Issue 12 , December 2023 , pp. 1378 - 1383
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of J.L.O. (1984) LIMITED

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Joint first authors

Dr J Y Tan takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Bussu, F, Parrilla, C, Rizzo, D, Almadori, G, Paludetti, G, Galli, J. Clinical approach and treatment of benign and malignant parotid masses, personal experience. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2011;31:135–43Google ScholarPubMed
El Sayed Ahmad, Y, Winters, R. Parotidectomy. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island, FL: StatPearls Publishing, 2022Google Scholar
Chaudhary, VK, Rawat, DS, Tailor, M, Verma, PC, Aseri, Y, Singh, BK. Post parotidectomy quality of life in patients with benign parotid neoplasm: a prospective study. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019;71:363–810.1007/s12070-018-1312-9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ciuman, RR, Oels, W, Jaussi, R, Dost, P. Outcome, general, and symptom-specific quality of life after various types of parotid resection. Laryngoscope 2012;122:1254–6110.1002/lary.23318CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolber, P, Volk, G, Horstmann, L, Finkensieper, M, Shabli, S, Wittekindt, C et al. Patient‘s perspective on long-term complications after superficial parotidectomy for benign lesions: prospective analysis of a 2-year follow-up. Clin Otolaryngol 2018;43:1073–910.1111/coa.13104CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plath, M, Sand, M, Plinkert, PK, Baumann, I, Zaoui, K. Long-term outcomes and quality of life following parotidectomy for benign disease: a cohort study. Preprint (version 2), 11 November 2020. In: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-25435/v2 [2 April 2022]10.21203/rs.3.rs-25435/v2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
General Medical Council. Guidance on professional standards and ethics for doctors: Decision making and consent. In: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent/the-dialogue-leading-to-a-decision [27 October 2022]Google Scholar
Statista Research Department. Share of individuals who have used the internet to search for health care information in the United Kingdom (UK) in 2015. In: https://www.statista.com/statistics/505053/individual-use-internet-for-health-information-search-united-kingdom-uk/ [2 April 2022]Google Scholar
Health Education England. Health literacy ‘how to’ guide. In: https://library.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/08/Health-literacy-how-to-guide.pdf [28 October 2022]Google Scholar
Weis, B. Health Literacy and Patient Safety: Help Patients Understand. Manual for Clinicians. Chicago: American Medical Association Foundation, 2007Google Scholar
Grose, EM, Holmes, CP, Aravinthan, KA, Wu, V, Lee, JM. Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to nasal septoplasty. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2021;50:1610.1186/s40463-021-00507-zCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferster, APO, Hu, A. Evaluating the quality and readability of internet information sources regarding the treatment of swallowing disorders. Ear Nose Throat J 2017;96:128–3810.1177/014556131709600312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ting, K, Hu, A. Evaluating the quality and readability of thyroplasty information on the internet. J Voice 2014;28:378–8110.1016/j.jvoice.2013.10.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kong, KA, Hu, A. Readability assessment of online tracheostomy care resources. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 2015;152:272–810.1177/0194599814560338CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svider, PF, Agarwal, N, Choudhry, OJ, Hajart, AF, Baredes, S, Liu, JK et al. Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 2013;34:31–510.1016/j.amjoto.2012.08.001CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–3310.1037/h0057532CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunning, R. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952Google Scholar
Flesch, R, ed. How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and Consumers. New York: Harper & Row, 1979Google Scholar
Charnock, D, ed. The DISCERN Handbook: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 1998Google Scholar
Eysenbach, G. The impact of the internet on cancer outcomes. CA Cancer J Clin 2003;53:356–7110.3322/canjclin.53.6.356CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boston, M, Ruwe, E, Duggins, A, Willging, JP. Internet use by parents of children undergoing outpatient otolaryngology procedures. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:719–2210.1001/archotol.131.8.719CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wong, C, Harrison, C, Britt, H, Henderson, J. Patient use of the internet for health information. Aust Fam Physician 2014;43:875–7Google ScholarPubMed
Benigeri, M, Pluye, P. Shortcomings of health information on the internet. Health Promot Int 2003;18:381–610.1093/heapro/dag409CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kessels, RPC. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med 2003;96:219–22Google ScholarPubMed
Mansoor, LE, Dowse, R. Medicines information and adherence in HIV/AIDS patients. J Clin Pharm Ther 2006;31:7–1510.1111/j.1365-2710.2006.00696.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grose, EM, Cheng, EY, Levin, M, Philteos, J, Lee, JW, Monteiro, EA. Critical quality and readability analysis of online patient education materials on parotidectomy: a cross-sectional study. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 2022;131:1317–2410.1177/00034894211066670CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vargas, CR, Chuang, DJ, Lee, BT. Online patient resources for hernia repair: analysis of readability. J Surg Res 2014;190:144–5010.1016/j.jss.2014.03.045CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadjipavlou, M, Khan, S, Rane, A. Readability of patient information leaflets for urological conditions and treatments. J Clin Urol 2013;6:302–510.1177/2051415813489554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Literacy Trust. Adult literacy. In: https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/ [3 April 2022]Google Scholar
Etchells, E, Sharpe, G, Elliott, C, Singer, PA. Bioethics for clinicians: 3. Capacity. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J 1996;155:657–61Google ScholarPubMed
Kaicker, J, Dang, W. Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP using the DISCERN instrument. Health Care Curr Rev 2013;1:104Google Scholar
Houts, PS, Doak, CC, Doak, LG, Loscalzo, MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61:173–9010.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bol, N, Smets, EMA, Eddes, EH, de Haes, JCJM, Loos, EF, van Weert, JCM. Illustrations enhance older colorectal cancer patients’ website satisfaction and recall of online cancer information. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2015;24:213–2310.1111/ecc.12283CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MDU. Montgomery and informed consent. In: https://www.themdu.com/guidance-and-advice/guides/montgomery-and-informed-consent [7 June 2020]Google Scholar
McMullan, M. Patients using the internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006;63:24–810.1016/j.pec.2005.10.006CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
General Medical Council. Guidance on professional standards and ethics for doctors: Decision making and consent. In: https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/decision-making-and-consent/taking-a-proportionate-approach [28 October 2022]Google Scholar
Jindal, P, MacDermid, JC. Assessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of Flesch formula. Educ Health (Abingdon) 2017;30:84–810.4103/1357-6283.210517CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed