title: Readability Assessment of Patient Information about Lymphedema and Its Treatment.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Patient use of online resources for health information is increasing, and access to appropriately written information has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and overall outcomes. The American Medical Association and the National Institutes of Health recommend that patient materials be written at a sixth-grade reading level. In this study, the authors simulated a patient search of online educational content for lymphedema and evaluated readability.
  
  
  METHODS
  An online search for the term "lymphedema" was performed, and the first 12 hits were identified. User and location filters were disabled and sponsored results were excluded. Patient information from each site was downloaded and formatted into plain text. Readability was assessed using established tests: Coleman-Liau, Flesch-Kincaid, Flesch Reading Ease Index, FORCAST Readability Formula, Fry Graph, Gunning Fog Index, New Dale-Chall Formula, New Fog Count, Raygor Readability Estimate, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Readability Formula.
  
  
  RESULTS
  There were 152 patient articles downloaded; the overall mean reading level was 12.6. Individual website reading levels ranged from 9.4 (cancer.org) to 16.7 (wikipedia.org). There were 36 articles dedicated to conservative treatments for lymphedema; surgical treatment was mentioned in nine articles across four sites. The average reading level for conservative management was 12.7, compared with 15.6 for surgery (p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Patient information found through an Internet search for lymphedema is too difficult for many American adults to read. Websites queried had a range of readability, and surgeons should direct patients to sites appropriate for their level. There is limited information about surgical treatment available on the most popular sites; this information is significantly harder to read than sections on conservative measures.
authors.affiliation: Boston, Mass. From the Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School.
authors.forename: Akhil K
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Seth
authors.forename: Christina R
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Vargas
authors.forename: Danielle J
authors.initials: DJ
authors.lastname: Chuang
authors.forename: Bernard T
authors.initials: BT
authors.lastname: Lee
mesh_terms: D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000601:surgery; D032882:Comprehension; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D008209:Lymphedema / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy; D010353:Patient Education as Topic; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy; D011932:Reading
references.citation: Kim K, Kwon N. Profile of e-patients: Analysis of their cancer information-seeking from a national survey. J Health Commun. 2010;15:712–733
references.citation: Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T, et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: A comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1585–1595
references.citation: Rutten LJ, Squiers L, Hesse B. Cancer-related information seeking: Hints from the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). J Health Commun. 2006;11(Suppl 1):147–156
references.citation: Ashraf AA, Colakoglu S, Nguyen JT, et al. Patient involvement in the decision-making process improves satisfaction and quality of life in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. J Surg Res. 2013;184:665–670
references.citation: Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:745–767
references.citation: Lee BT, Chen C, Yueh JH, Nguyen MD, Lin SJ, Tobias AM. Computer-based learning module increases shared decision making in breast reconstruction. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:738–743
references.citation: Matros E, Yueh JH, Bar-Meir ED, et al. Sociodemographics, referral patterns, and Internet use for decision-making in microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1087–1094
references.citation: Bostock S, Steptoe A. Association between low functional health literacy and mortality in older adults: Longitudinal cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:e1602
references.citation: Rodríguez V, Andrade AD, García-Retamero R, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and graphical literacy among veterans in primary care and their effect on shared decision making and trust in physicians. J Health Commun. 2013;18(Suppl 1):273–289
references.citation: Sentell TL, Halpin HA. Importance of adult literacy in understanding health disparities. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:862–866
references.citation: Patel PP, Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ciminello FS. Analysis of comprehensibility of patient information regarding complex craniofacial conditions. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22:1179–1182
references.citation: Petrek JA, Senie RT, Peters M, Rosen PP. Lymphedema in a cohort of breast carcinoma survivors 20 years after diagnosis. Cancer. 2001;92:1368–1377
references.citation: Lawenda BD, Mondry TE, Johnstone PA. Lymphedema: A primer on the identification and management of a chronic condition in oncologic treatment. CA Cancer J Clin. 2009;59:8–24
references.citation: Mak SS, Yeo W, Lee YM, et al. Predictors of lymphedema in patients with breast cancer undergoing axillary lymph node dissection in Hong Kong. Nurs Res. 2008;57:416–425
references.citation: McLaughlin SA, Bagaria S, Gibson T, et al. Trends in risk reduction practices for the prevention of lymphedema in the first 12 months after breast cancer surgery. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:380–389
references.citation: Aliu O, Chung KC. Readability of ASPS and ASAPS educational web sites: An analysis of consumer impact. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:1271–1278
references.citation: Wang SW, Capo JT, Orillaza N. Readability and comprehensibility of patient education material in hand-related web sites. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34:1308–1315
references.citation: Cox N, Bowmer C, Ring A. Health literacy and the provision of information to women with breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol.). 2011;23:223–227
references.citation: Ricci JA, Vargas CR, Chuang DJ, Lin SJ, Lee BT. Readability assessment of online patient resources for breast augmentation surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135:1573–1579
references.citation: Vargas CR, Koolen PG, Chuang DJ, Ganor O, Lee BT. Online patient resources for breast reconstruction: An analysis of readability. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:406–413
references.citation: Shedlosky-Shoemaker R, Sturm AC, Saleem M, Kelly KM. Tools for assessing readability and quality of health-related Web sites. J Genet Couns. 2009;18:49–59
references.citation: Sand-Jecklin K. The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 2007;24:119–129
references.citation: Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav. 2006;33:352–373
references.citation: Misra P, Agarwal N, Kasabwala K, Hansberry DR, Setzen M, Eloy JA. Readability analysis of healthcare-oriented education resources from the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Laryngoscope. 2013;123:90–96
references.citation: Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, Kitay A, Roberts TR, Daluiski A. The effect of search term on the quality and accuracy of online information regarding distal radius fractures. J Hand Surg Am. 2012;37:1881–1887
references.citation: Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ingargiola MJ, Granick MS. A survey of patient comprehension of readily accessible online educational material regarding plastic surgery procedures. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33:436–442
references.citation: O’Bryant SE, Lucas JA, Willis FB, Smith GE, Graff-Radford NR, Ivnik RJ. Discrepancies between self-reported years of education and estimated reading level among elderly community-dwelling African-Americans: Analysis of the MOAANS data. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2007;22:327–332