Are We Effectively Informing Patients? A Quantitative Analysis of On-Line Patient Education Resources from the American Society of Neuroradiology

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Fox S

   . The Social Life of Health Information, 2011. http://www.pewinternet.org/∼/media/Files/Reports/2011/PIP_Social_Life_of_Health_Info.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2013
2. 2.↵
   Internet & American Life Project. Demographics of internet users. Pew Research Center; 2011. http://pewinternet.org/∼/media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Digital_differences_041312.pdf. Accessed September 1, 2013
3. 3.↵
   1. Fox S,
   2. Rainie L

   . Vital Decisions. Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2002. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2002/Vital-Decisions-A-Pew-Internet-Health-Report.aspx. Accessed September 1, 2013
4. 4.↵
   1. Diaz JA,
   2. Griffith RA,
   3. Ng JJ,
   4. et al

   . Patients' use of the Internet for medical information. J Gen Intern Med 2002;17:180–85

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Weis BD

   . Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago: American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation; 2003
6. 6.↵
   1. Kutner M,
   2. Greenberg E,
   3. Jin Y,
   4. et al

   . The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006
7. 7.↵
   1. Williams MV,
   2. Parker RM,
   3. Baker DW,
   4. et al

   . Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA 1995;274:1677–82

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
8. 8.↵
   1. Baker D,
   2. Parker R,
   3. Williams MV,
   4. et al

   . The health care experience of patients with low literacy. Arch Fam Med 1996;5:329–34

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Potter L,
   2. Martin C

   . Health Literacy Fact Sheets. Lawrenceville, New Jersey: Center for Health Care Strategies, 2013. http://www.chcs.org/usr_doc/CHCS_Health_Literacy_Fact_Sheets_2013.pdf. Accessed August 18, 2013
10. 10.↵
    1. White S

    . Assessing the Nation's Health Literacy: Key Concepts and Findings of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Chicago: AMA Foundation; 2008
11. 11.↵
    National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy-to-Read Health Materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed July 1, 2013
12. 12.↵
    1. Colaco M,
    2. Svider PF,
    3. Agarwal N,
    4. et al

    . Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol 2013;189:1048–52

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Eloy JA,
    2. Li S,
    3. Kasabwala K,
    4. et al

    . Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association Websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:848–54

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Kasabwala K,
    2. Agarwal N,
    3. Hansberry DR,
    4. et al

    . Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:466–71

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Misra P,
    2. Agarwal N,
    3. Kasabwala K,
    4. et al

    . Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS). Laryngoscope 2013;123:90–96

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Misra P,
    2. Kasabwala K,
    3. Agarwal N,
    4. et al

    . Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors. J Neurooncol 2012;109:573–80

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Svider PF,
    2. Agarwal N,
    3. Choudhry OJ,
    4. et al

    . Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology-head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 2013;34:31–35

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Kasabwala K,
    2. Misra P,
    3. Hansberry DR,
    4. et al

    . Readability assessment of the American Rhinologic Society patient education materials. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 2013;3:325–33

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Agarwal N,
    2. Sarris C,
    3. Hansberry DR,
    4. et al

    . Quality of patient education materials for rehabilitation after neurological surgery. NeuroRehabilitation 2013;32:817–21

    PubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Agarwal N,
    2. Chaudhari A,
    3. Hansberry DR,
    4. et al

    . A comparative analysis of neurosurgical online education materials to assess patient comprehension. J Clin Neurosci 2013;20:1357–61

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Hansberry DR,
    2. Suresh R,
    3. Agarwal N,
    4. et al

    . Quality assessment of online patient education resources for peripheral neuropathy. J Peripher Nerv Syst 2013;18:44–47

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Agarwal N,
    2. Hansberry DR,
    3. Sabourin V,
    4. et al

    . A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:1257–59

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    1. Hansberry DR,
    2. Agarwal N,
    3. Shah R,
    4. et al

    . Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope 2014;124:405–12

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Hansberry DR,
    2. John A,
    3. John E,
    4. et al

    . A critical review of the readability of online patient education resources from RadiologyInfo.org. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:566–75

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    1. Hansberry DR,
    2. Kraus C,
    3. Agarwal N,
    4. et al

    . Health literacy in vascular and interventional radiology: a comparative analysis of online patient education resources. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2014 Jan 31. [Epub ahead of print]
26. 26.↵
    1. Flesch R

    . A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–33

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Kincaid EH

    . The Medicare program: exploring federal health care policy. N C Med J 1992;53:596–601

    PubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. McLaughlin GH

    . SMOG grading: a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 1969;12:639–46

    Web of Science
29. 29.↵
    1. Coleman M,
    2. Liau TL

    . A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 1975;60:283–84

    CrossRefWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Gunning R

    . The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1952
31. 31.↵
    1. Chall JS

    . Readability Revisited: The new Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Brookline Books; 1995
32. 32.↵
    1. Caylor JS,
    2. Sticht TG,
    3. Fox LC,
    4. et al

    . Methodologies for Determining Reading Requirements of Military Occupational Specialties: Tech Report No. 73–5. Human Resources Research Organization. Defense Technical Information Center: Alexandria, Virginia; 1973
33. 33.↵
    1. Fry E

    . A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading 1968;11:513–16, 575–78

    Web of Science
34. 34.↵
    1. Pearson PD

    1. Raygor AL

    . The Raygor Readability Estimate: a quick and easy way to determine difficulty. In: Pearson PD , ed. Reading: Theory Research and Practice. Clemson, South Carolina: National Reading Conference; 1977:259–63
35. 35.↵
    1. Penson RT,
    2. Benson RC,
    3. Parles K,
    4. et al

    . Virtual connections: internet health care. Oncologist 2002;7:555–68

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
36. 36.↵
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Simply Put: A Guide for Creating Easy-to-Understand Materials. 3rd ed. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009
37. 37.↵
    1. Aliu O,
    2. Chung KC

    . Readability of ASPS and ASAPS educational web sites: an analysis of consumer impact. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010;125:1271–78

    PubMed
38. 38.↵
    1. Badarudeen S,
    2. Sabharwal S

    . Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:2572–80

    CrossRefPubMed
39. 39.↵
    1. Greywoode J,
    2. Bluman E,
    3. Spiegel J,
    4. et al

    . Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery website. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:555–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
40. 40.↵
    1. Bouton ME,
    2. Shirah GR,
    3. Nodora J,
    4. et al

    . Implementation of educational video improves patient understanding of basic breast cancer concepts in an undereducated county hospital population. J Surg Oncol 2012;105:48–54

    CrossRefPubMed
41. 41.↵
    1. Doak CC,
    2. Doak LG,
    3. Friedell GH,
    4. et al

    . Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA Cancer J Clin 1998;48:151–62

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
42. 42.↵
    1. Davis TC,
    2. Williams MV,
    3. Marin E,
    4. et al

    . Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 2002;52:134–49

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
43. 43.↵
    1. Katz MG,
    2. Kripalani S,
    3. Weiss BD

    . Use of pictorial aids in medication instructions: a review of the literature. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63:2391–97

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
44. 44.↵
    1. Friedman DB,
    2. Hoffman-Goetz L

    . A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 2006;33:352–73

    Abstract/FREE Full Text