Readability of Patient Education Materials Related to Radiation Safety: What Are the Implications for Patient-centred Radiology Care?

Overview

Journal Insights Imaging

Publisher Springer

Specialty Radiology

Date 2021 Oct 21

PMID 34674063

Citations 4

Authors

Francis T Delaney

Tiarnan O Doinn

James M Broderick

Emma Stanley

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Increasing numbers of patients and carers rely on online resources for healthcare information. Radiation safety can be misunderstood by patients and clinicians and lead to patient anxiety. We aimed to assess the readability of online patient educational materials (PEMs) related to radiation safety.

Methods: A total of 84 articles pertaining to radiation safety from 14 well-known online resources were identified. PEMs were then analysed using Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2019. Readability was assessed using eight different instruments: the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman-Liau, Fry, FORCAST, Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score formula. The mean reading grade level (RGL) of each article was compared to the 6th and 8th grade reading level using 1-sample t-tests.

Results: The cumulative mean RGL for all 84 articles was 13.3 (range = 8.6-17.4), and none were written at or below the 6th or 8th grade level. The cumulative mean RGL exceeded the 6th grade reading level by an average of 7.3 levels (95% CI, 6.8-7.8; p < 0.001) and the 8th grade level by an average of 5.3 grade levels (95% CI, 4.8-5.8; p < 0.001). The mean Flesch Reading Ease Score was 39/100 ('difficult').

Conclusion: Currently available online PEMs related to radiation safety are still written at higher than recommended reading levels. Radiation safety is a topic in which the specialist training of radiologists is crucial in providing guidance to patients. Addressing the readability of online PEMs can improve radiology-patient communication and support the shift to a patient-centred model of practice.

Citing Articles

Assessing the language availability, readability, suitability and comprehensibility of heat-health messaging content on health authority webpages and online resources in Canada.

Tetzlaff E, Janetos K, Wagar K, Mourad F, Gorman M, Gallant V PEC Innov. 2025; 6:100368.

PMID: 39896057 PMC: 11786110. DOI: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2024.100368.

Radiation Dose Optimization in Radiology: A Comprehensive Review of Safeguarding Patients and Preserving Image Fidelity.

Dudhe S, Mishra G, Parihar P, Nimodia D, Kumari A Cureus. 2024; 16(5):e60846.

PMID: 38910606 PMC: 11191847. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.60846.

Comprehensiveness of online sources for patient education on hereditary hearing impairment.

Duymaz Y, Tekin A, DHaese P, Sahin S, Erkmen B, Cirik A Front Pediatr. 2023; 11:1147207.

PMID: 37404560 PMC: 10315533. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1147207.

The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies.

Nash E, Bickerstaff M, Chetwynd A, Hawcutt D, Oni L Pediatr Res. 2023; 94(3):1166-1171.

PMID: 37120650 PMC: 10444605. DOI: 10.1038/s41390-023-02608-z.

Patient Education Materials Found via Google Search for Shoulder Arthroscopy Are Written at Too-High of a Reading Level.

Abdullah Y, Alokozai A, Mathew A, Stamm M, Mulcahey M Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022; 4(4):e1575-e1579.

PMID: 36033169 PMC: 9402457. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2022.04.034.

References

Bange M, Huh E, Novin S, Hui F, Yi P . Readability of Patient Education Materials From RadiologyInfo.org: Has There Been Progress Over the Past 5 Years?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019; 213(4):875-879. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.21047. View

Gebhard R, Goske M, Salisbury S, Leopard A, Hater D . Improving health literacy: use of an informational brochure improves parents' understanding of their child's fluoroscopic examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014; 204(1):W95-W103. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.14.12573. View

Krille L, Hammer G, Merzenich H, Zeeb H . Systematic review on physician's knowledge about radiation doses and radiation risks of computed tomography. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 76(1):36-41. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.08.025. View

Yi P, Yi M, Nguyen J . Readability of Online Information Related to Pediatric Radiation Safety From Societal Websites. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018; 211(5):1128-1134. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19299. View

Haygood T . Patient Literacy and Access to Radiology Information. Radiology. 2019; 291(1):119-120. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2019190007. View

Hirsch M, Aggarwal S, Barker C, Davis C, Duffy J . Googling endometriosis: a systematic review of information available on the Internet. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 216(5):451-458.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.11.1007. 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

Bach R, Wenz A . Studying health-related internet and mobile device use using web logs and smartphone records. PLoS One. 2020; 15(6):e0234663. PMC: 7292384. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0234663. View

Agarwal N, Hansberry D, Sabourin V, Tomei K, Prestigiacomo C . A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(13):1257-9. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060. View

10.

Rice R . Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform. 2005; 75(1):8-28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2005.07.032. View

11.

Rigsby C, Krishnaraj A . Progress in Improving Readability of RadiologyInfo.org. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214(5):W78. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22362. View

12.

Lumbreras B, Vilar J, Gonzalez-Alvarez I, Guilabert M, Pastor-Valero M, Parker L . Avoiding fears and promoting shared decision-making: How should physicians inform patients about radiation exposure from imaging tests?. PLoS One. 2017; 12(7):e0180592. PMC: 5501589. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180592. View

13.

Ludwig R, Turner L . Effective patient education in medical imaging: public perceptions of radiation exposure risk. J Allied Health. 2002; 31(3):159-64. View

14.

Busey J, Soine L, Yager J, Choi E, Shuman W . Patient knowledge and understanding of radiation from diagnostic imaging. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(3):239-41. DOI: 10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1013. View

15.

Moore Q . Medical radiation dose perception and its effect on public health. Radiol Technol. 2014; 85(3):247-55. View

16.

O Doinn T, Broderick J, Abdelhalim M, Quinlan J . Readability of Patient Educational Materials in Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Has a Decade Made a Difference?. J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35(11):3076-3083. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.05.076. View

17.

Morrison A, Brousseau D, Brazauskas R, Levas M . Health literacy affects likelihood of radiology testing in the pediatric emergency department. J Pediatr. 2015; 166(4):1037-41.e1. PMC: 4380861. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2014.12.009. View

18.

Epstein R, Street Jr R . The values and value of patient-centered care. Ann Fam Med. 2011; 9(2):100-3. PMC: 3056855. DOI: 10.1370/afm.1239. View

19.

Hofstede S, van Bodegom-Vos L, Wentink M, Vleggeert-Lankamp C, Vliet Vlieland T, Marang-van de Mheen P . Most important factors for the implementation of shared decision making in sciatica care: ranking among professionals and patients. PLoS One. 2014; 9(4):e94176. PMC: 3978036. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0094176. View

20.

Barry M, Edgman-Levitan S . Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(9):780-1. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1109283. View