Readability Analysis of Patient-Accessible Information Regarding Ambulatory Surgical Center Procedures

Overview

Journal Int J Spine Surg

Date 2021 Oct 15

PMID 34649950

Citations 1

Authors

Conor P Lynch

Elliot D K Cha

Nathaniel W Jenkins

James M Parrish

Shruthi Mohan

Cara E Geoghegan

Caroline N Jadczak

Kern Singh

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: As spine surgery in the ambulatory setting becomes more frequent, patients should comprehend the difference from traditional hospital-based, outpatient settings. Limited research exists on the readability of online articles surrounding spine surgery in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC). In this study, we intend to evaluate the readability of online articles pertaining to spine surgery in the outpatient and ambulatory surgical settings.

Methods: Three search engines were queried, and the first 100 articles pertaining to each outpatient spine surgery search term were collected. Advertisements, videos, and peer-reviewed scientific articles were excluded. Articles were categorized by publishing source as follows: hospital or institution, general medical Websites, private practice, or surgery center. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level, Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score, word count, sentences per paragraph, words per sentence, and characters per word were evaluated for each article. Student's tests compared readability metrics between groups based on setting and procedure region.

Results: A total of 342 articles was analyzed; 279 articles were outpatient hospital related, and 63 ASC related. Flesch-Kincaid grade levels or FRE scores were not significantly different between outpatient hospital and ambulatory center. Comparison of ASC to outpatient articles from a hospital or institution source significantly differed in FRE score (40.7 versus 32.4) and FK grade level (12.3 versus 13.9; all < .05). Articles addressing procedure type were significantly different in FRE score (36.2 versus 30.0) and FK grade level (13.0 ± 2.1 versus 14.3 ± 1.8).

Conclusions: Hospital, private practice, and medical journalists should be aware of significant differences in readability of patient-accessible ASC articles. These articles may be more difficult to read than outpatient hospital articles, and production of more reading-level-appropriate online literature is required.

Level Of Evidence: 3 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is a significant difference in the readability of patient-accessible ASC articles.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Spine Patient Preferences for the Location of Surgery Between a Hospital and an Ambulatory Surgical Center in the Time of COVID-19: An Analysis of Patient Surveys.

Cassimatis N, OMalley G, Ihionkhan E, Vingan R, Khan M, Azmi H Cureus. 2022; 14(11):e31655.

PMID: 36545174 PMC: 9760451. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.31655.

References

Cotugna N, Vickery C, Carpenter-Haefele K . Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health. 2005; 30(3):213-9. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-004-1959-x. View

Long W, Modi K, Haws B, Khechen B, Massel D, Mayo B . Assessing Online Patient Education Readability for Spine Surgery Procedures. Clin Spine Surg. 2017; 31(2):E146-E151. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000575. View

Zhang D, Schumacher C, Harris M, Bono C . The Quality and Readability of Information Available on the Internet Regarding Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine J. 2016; 6(2):133-8. PMC: 4771515. DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1557145. View

Ortega A, Sarmiento J, Patil C, Mukherjee D, Ugiliweneza B, Nuno M . Comparative Analysis of Inpatient and Outpatient Interspinous Process Device Placement for Lumbar Spinal Stenosis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg. 2015; 76(6):443-50. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1382785. View

Friedman D, Hoffman-Goetz L . A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006; 33(3):352-73. DOI: 10.1177/1090198105277329. View

Idowu O, Boyajian H, Ramos E, Shi L, Lee M . Trend of Spine Surgeries in the Outpatient Hospital Setting Versus Ambulatory Surgical Center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017; 42(24):E1429-E1436. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002180. View

Ryu J, Yi P . Readability of Spine-Related Patient Education Materials From Leading Orthopedic Academic Centers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015; 41(9):E561-5. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001321. View

Chin K, Pencle F, Coombs A, Packer C, Hothem E, Seale J . Eligibility of Outpatient Spine Surgery Candidates in a Single Private Practice. Clin Spine Surg. 2016; 30(10):E1352-E1358. DOI: 10.1097/BSD.0000000000000374. View

Vives M, Young L, Sabharwal S . Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009; 34(25):2826-31. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181b4bb0c. View

10.

Erdem M, Karaca S . Evaluating the Accuracy and Quality of the Information in Kyphosis Videos Shared on YouTube. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 43(22):E1334-E1339. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002691. View

11.

Patel D, Yoo J, Karmarkar S, Lamoutte E, Singh K . Minimally invasive lumbar decompression in an ambulatory surgery center. J Spine Surg. 2019; 5(Suppl 2):S166-S173. PMC: 6790801. DOI: 10.21037/jss.2019.04.05. View

12.

Eltorai A, Cheatham M, Naqvi S, Marthi S, Dang V, Palumbo M . Is the Readability of Spine-Related Patient Education Material Improving?: An Assessment of Subspecialty Websites. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(12):1041-1048. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001446. View

13.

Agarwal N, Feghhi D, Gupta R, Hansberry D, Quinn J, Heary R . A comparative analysis of minimally invasive and open spine surgery patient education resources. J Neurosurg Spine. 2014; 21(3):468-74. DOI: 10.3171/2014.5.SPINE13600. View

14.

Patel D, Yoo J, Haws B, Khechen B, Lamoutte E, Karmarkar S . Comparative analysis of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion in the inpatient versus outpatient surgical setting. J Neurosurg Spine. 2019; 31(2):255-260. DOI: 10.3171/2019.1.SPINE181311. View

15.

Prakash S, Verma S, McGowan J, Smith B, Shroff A, Gibson G . Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using an educational video. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013; 27(12):696-700. PMC: 3915011. DOI: 10.1155/2013/292636. View

16.

Liebner L . I can't read that! Improving perioperative literacy for ambulatory surgical patients. AORN J. 2015; 101(4):416-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.aorn.2015.01.016. View

17.

Fields A, Freiberg C, Fickenscher A, Shelley K . Patients and jargon: are we speaking the same language?. J Clin Anesth. 2008; 20(5):343-346. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2008.02.006. View

18.

Arshi A, Wang C, Park H, Blumstein G, Buser Z, Wang J . Ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion is associated with a higher risk of revision surgery and perioperative complications: an analysis of a large nationwide database. Spine J. 2017; 18(7):1180-1187. PMC: 6291305. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2017.11.012. View

19.

Brooks F, Lawrence H, Jones A, McCarthy M . YouTube™ as a source of patient information for lumbar discectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2014; 96(2):144-6. PMC: 4474244. DOI: 10.1308/003588414X13814021676396. View

20.

Sivaganesan A, Hirsch B, Phillips F, McGirt M . Spine Surgery in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Setting: Value-Based Advancement or Safety Liability?. Neurosurgery. 2018; 83(2):159-165. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy057. View