Advertisement

Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening

Published:March 27, 2014DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.034

      Background

      Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the Unites States are still below target level. Web-based patient education materials are used by patients and providers to provide supplemental information on CRC screening. Low literacy levels and patient perceptions are significant barriers to screening. There are little data on the quality of these online materials from a health literacy standpoint or whether they address patients' perceptions.

      Objective

      To evaluate the readability, suitability, and health content of web-based patient education materials on colon cancer screening.

      Design

      Descriptive study.

      Setting

      Web-based patient materials.

      Interventions

      Twelve reputable and popular online patient education materials were evaluated. Readability was measured by using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, and suitability was determined by the Suitability Assessment of Materials, a scale that considers characteristics such as content, graphics, layout/typography, and learning stimulation. Health content was evaluated within the framework of the Health Belief Model, a behavioral model that relates patients' perceptions of susceptibility to disease, severity, and benefits and barriers to their medical decisions. Each material was scored independently by 3 reviewers.

      Main Outcome Measurements

      Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level score, Suitability Assessment of Materials score, health content score.

      Results

      Readability for 10 of 12 materials surpassed the maximum recommended sixth-grade reading level. Five were 10th grade level and above. Only 1 of 12 materials received a superior suitability score; 3 materials received inadequate scores. Health content analysis revealed that only 50% of the resources discussed CRC risk in the general population and <25% specifically addressed patients at high risk, such as African Americans, smokers, patients with diabetes, and obese patients. For perceived barriers to screening, only 8.3% of resources discussed embarrassment, 25% discussed pain with colonoscopy, 25% addressed cost of colonoscopy, and none specifically mentioned the need to get colonoscopy when no symptoms are present. No material discussed the social benefits of screening.

      Limitations

      Descriptive design.

      Conclusion

      Most online patient education materials for CRC screening are written beyond the recommended sixth-grade reading level, with suboptimal suitability. Health content is lacking in addressing key perceived risks, barriers, and benefits to CRC screening. Developing more appropriate and targeted patient education resources on CRC may improve patient understanding and promote screening.

      Abbreviations:

      CRC (colorectal cancer), FOBT (fecal occult blood test), HBM (Health Belief Model), SAM (Suitability Assessment of Materials)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Siegel R.
        • Naishadham D.
        • Jemal A.
        Cancer statistics, 2012.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 10-29
        • Colorectal cancer screening
        Cancer Trends Progress Report—2011/2012 Update, vol. 2013.
        National Cancer Institute, 2013
        • Cutilli C.C.
        • Bennett I.M.
        Understanding the health literacy of America: results of the National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
        Orthop Nurs. 2009; 28 (quiz 33-4): 27-32
        • Davis T.
        • Arnold C.
        • Rademaker A.
        • et al.
        Improving colon cancer screening in community clinics.
        Cancer. 2013; 119: 3879-3886
        • Naylor K.
        • Ward J.
        • Polite B.N.
        Interventions to improve care related to colorectal cancer among racial and ethnic minorities: a systematic review.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2012; 27: 1033-1046
        • Doak C.C.
        • Doak L.G.
        • Root J.H.
        Teaching patients with low literacy skills.
        JB Lippincott Company, Philadelphia1996
        • Janz N.K.
        • Becker M.H.
        The Health Belief Model: a decade later.
        Health Educ Q. 1984; 11: 1-47
        • Harewood G.C.
        • Wiersema M.J.
        • Melton 3rd, L.J.
        A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2002; 97: 3186-3194
        • James A.S.
        • Campbell M.K.
        • Hudson M.A.
        Perceived barriers and benefits to colon cancer screening among African Americans in North Carolina: How does perception relate to screening behavior?.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002; 11: 529-534
        • Marcus A.C.
        • Mason M.
        • Wolfe P.
        • et al.
        The efficacy of tailored print materials in promoting colorectal cancer screening: results from a randomized trial involving callers to the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Information Service.
        J Health Commun. 2005; 10: 83-104
      1. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, et al. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Chief of Naval Technical Training: Naval Air Station, Memphis. Research Branch report 8-75. 1975.

      2. Doak CC, Doak LG, Miller K, et al. Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). American Public Health Association Annual Meeting. Washington DC, 1994.

        • Rhee R.L.
        • Von Feldt J.M.
        • Schumacher H.R.
        • et al.
        Readability and suitability assessment of patient education materials in rheumatic diseases.
        Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013; 65: 1702-1706
        • Weintraub D.
        • Maliski S.L.
        • Fink A.
        • et al.
        Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2004; 55: 275-280
        • Finnie R.K.
        • Felder T.M.
        • Linder S.K.
        • et al.
        Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and Web-based materials.
        J Cancer Educ. 2010; 25: 497-505
        • Mackert M.
        • Love B.
        Educational content and health literacy issues in direct-to-consumer advertising of pharmaceuticals.
        Health Mark Q. 2011; 28: 205-218
        • Birru M.
        • Steinman R.A.
        Online health information and low-literacy African Americans.
        J Med Internet Res. 2004; 6: e26
      3. New colon cancer survey finds 7 out of 10 people over the age of 50 forgo a colonoscopy due to fear, vol. 2013. Colon Cancer Alliance, Washington, DC2011
        • Meade C.D.
        • McKinney W.P.
        • Barnas G.P.
        Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer.
        Am J Public Health. 1994; 84: 119-121
        • Cotugna N.
        • Vickery C.E.
        • Carpenter-Haefele K.M.
        Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals.
        J Comm Health. 2005; 30: 213-219
        • Colaco M.
        • Svider P.F.
        • Agarwal N.
        • et al.
        Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials.
        J Urol. 2013; 189: 1048-1052
        • Ollberding N.J.
        • Nomura A.M.
        • Wilkens L.R.
        • et al.
        Racial/ethnic differences in colorectal cancer risk: the multiethnic cohort study.
        Int J Cancer. 2011; 129: 1899-1906
        • Tsoi K.K.
        • Pau C.Y.
        • Wu W.K.
        • et al.
        Cigarette smoking and the risk of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies.
        Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009; 7 (e1-5): 682-688
        • Deng L.
        • Gui Z.
        • Zhao L.
        • et al.
        Diabetes mellitus and the incidence of colorectal cancer: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Dig Dis Sci. 2012; 57: 1576-1585
        • Gall C.A.
        • Weller D.
        • Esterman A.
        • et al.
        Patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after treatment for colon cancer.
        Dis Colon Rectum. 2007; 50: 801-809
        • Bynum S.A.
        • Davis J.L.
        • Green B.L.
        • et al.
        Unwillingness to participate in colorectal cancer screening: examining fears, attitudes, and medical mistrust in an ethnically diverse sample of adults 50 years and older.
        Am J Health Promot. 2012; 26: 295-300
        • Solanki G.
        • Schauffler H.H.
        • Miller L.S.
        The direct and indirect effects of cost-sharing on the use of preventive services.
        Health Serv Res. 2000; 34: 1331-1350
        • Weitzman E.R.
        • Zapka J.
        • Estabrook B.
        • et al.
        Risk and reluctance: understanding impediments to colorectal cancer screening.
        Prev Med. 2001; 32: 502-513
        • Lieberman D.A.
        • Weiss D.G.
        • Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study G
        One-time screening for colorectal cancer with combined fecal occult-blood testing and examination of the distal colon.
        N Engl J Med. 2001; 345: 555-560