Readability and quality assessment of online patient education materials for spinal and epidural anesthesia

Abstract

Purpose: Guidelines recommend that health-related information for patients should be written at or below the sixth-grade level. We sought to evaluate the readability level and quality of online patient education materials regarding epidural and spinal anesthesia. Methods: We evaluated webpages with content written specifically regarding either spinal or epidural anesthesia, identified using 11 relevant search terms, with seven commonly used readability formulas: Flesh–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fox Index (GFI), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI), Automated Readability Index (ARI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), and New Dale–Chall (NDC). Two evaluators assessed the quality of the reading materials using the Brief DISCERN tool. Results: We analyzed 261 webpages. The mean (standard deviation) readability scores were: FKGL = 8.8 (1.9), GFI = 11.2 (2.2), CLI = 10.3 (1.9), ARI = 8.1 (2.2), SMOG = 11.6 (1.6), FRE = 55.7 (10.8), and NDC = 5.4 (1.0). The mean grade level was higher than the recommended sixth-grade level when calculated with six of the seven readability formulas. The average Brief DISCERN score was 16.0. Conclusion: Readability levels of online patient education materials pertaining to epidural and spinal anesthesia are higher than recommended. When we evaluated the quality of the information using a validated tool, the materials were found to be just below the threshold of what is considered good quality. Authors of educational materials should provide not only readable but also good-quality information to enhance patient understanding.