Readability of Online Patient-Directed Content About Cystoscopy and Urodynamic Testing

Overview

Journal Int Urogynecol J

Publisher Springer

Specialties Gynecology & Obstetrics
Urology

Date 2025 Mar 11

PMID 40067508

Authors

Mehr Jain

Jocelyn Stairs

Alana Sorgini

Aisling Clancy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction And Hypothesis: The objective was to assess the readability of commonly accessed patient-focused websites about cystoscopy or urodynamic studies (UDS).

Methods: Keywords related to cystoscopy and UDS were searched in three commonly accessed search engines in 2024 and compared with a search from 2022. The top 25 search results from each search engine were assessed against the study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Readability scores (Flesch Reading Ease score [FRES], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [FKGL], Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook [FOG], Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG]) were calculated for the websites included. Mean readability scores of websites were compared by procedure type and publisher using the Mann-Whitney test.

Results: In 2024, a total of 75 patient-oriented websites were identified, 33 (44.0%) of which were about cystoscopy and 42 (56.0%) websites were about UDS. Cystoscopy websites were difficult to read (FRES median 56 [55-69]), requiring grade 8-11 reading level (Gunning FOG median 11.3 [10.3-12.3]; FKGL median 8 [7.11-8.84]) and 8 years of education to read (SMOG median 8.06 [7.41-8.71]). UDS websites were difficult to read (FRES median 56 [41-66]), requiring grade 9-11 reading level (Gunning FOG median 11.45 [9.5-13.7]; FKGL median 8.85 [6.93-10.88]) and 8 years of education to read (SMOG median 8.49 [7.11-9.98]). Websites in 2024 were significantly easier to read than websites in 2022 based on Gunning FOG (p value 0.0079), FKGL (p value 0.0001), and SMOG scores (p value 0.0001), but still did not meet the recommendation of grade 6 reading level.

Conclusions: Patient-focused online information about cystoscopy and UDS was harder to read than the American Medical Association-recommended grade 6 reading level of patient information. Readability of cystoscopy and UDS online information has improved over 2 years.

References

Tan S, Goonawardene N . Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(1):e9. PMC: 5290294. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.5729. View

Hesse B, Moser R, Rutten L . Surveys of physicians and electronic health information. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(9):859-60. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc0909595. View

Tonsaker T, Bartlett G, Trpkov C . Health information on the Internet: gold mine or minefield?. Can Fam Physician. 2014; 60(5):407-8. PMC: 4020634. View

Fergie G, Hilton S, Hunt K . Young adults' experiences of seeking online information about diabetes and mental health in the age of social media. Health Expect. 2015; 19(6):1324-1335. PMC: 5139057. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12430. View

Colaco M, Svider P, Agarwal N, Eloy J, Jackson I . Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol. 2012; 189(3):1048-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255. View

Clancy A, Hickling D, Didomizio L, Sanaee M, Shehata F, Zee R . Patient-targeted websites on overactive bladder: What are our patients reading?. Neurourol Urodyn. 2017; 37(2):832-841. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23359. View

Reagan K, OSullivan D, Harvey D, Lasala C . Readability of patient information pamphlets in urogynecology. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2015; 21(2):63-5. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000152. View

Robertson T, Hamlin A . Urodynamics. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2010; 22(1):109-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.ccell.2009.10.001. View

Biardeau X, Lam O, Ba V, Campeau L, Corcos J . Prospective evaluation of anxiety, pain, and embarrassment associated with cystoscopy and urodynamic testing in clinical practice. Can Urol Assoc J. 2017; 11(3-4):104-110. PMC: 5434498. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.4127. View

10.

Gaines T, Malik R . Readability of pelvic floor dysfunction questionnaires. Neurourol Urodyn. 2020; 39(2):813-818. DOI: 10.1002/nau.24286. View

11.

Koo K, Shee K, Yap R . Readability analysis of online health information about overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn. 2016; 36(7):1782-1787. DOI: 10.1002/nau.23176. View

12.

Levine D, Lipsitz S, Linder J . Trends in Seniors' Use of Digital Health Technology in the United States, 2011-2014. JAMA. 2016; 316(5):538-40. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.9124. View

13.

Haller J, Keller Z, Barr S, Hadden K, Oliphant S . Assessing Readability: Are Urogynecologic Patient Education Materials at an Appropriate Reading Level?. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2019; 25(2):139-144. DOI: 10.1097/SPV.0000000000000653. View

14.

Handler S, Eckhardt S, Takashima Y, Jackson A, Truong C, Yazdany T . Readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders. Int Urogynecol J. 2021; 32(12):3249-3258. DOI: 10.1007/s00192-021-04776-0. View

15.

Husch T, Ober S, Haferkamp A, Naumann G, Tunn R, Saar M . Comparison of online health information between different digital platforms for pelvic organ prolapse. World J Urol. 2022; 40(10):2529-2534. PMC: 9512708. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-022-04129-6. View

16.

Jain M, Chkipov P, Stacey D, Posner G, Bacal V, Chen I . Online Patient Information for Hysterectomies: A Systematic Environmental Scan of Quality and Readability. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022; 44(8):870-876. DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2022.03.015. View

17.

Nattam A, Vithala T, Wu T, Bindhu S, Bond G, Liu H . Assessing the Readability of Online Patient Education Materials in Obstetrics and Gynecology Using Traditional Measures: Comparative Analysis and Limitations. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e46346. PMC: 10500363. DOI: 10.2196/46346. View