Readability of Consumer Health Information on the Internet: A Comparison of U.S. Government–Funded and Commercially Funded Websites

The Internet has become an extremely prevalent means of communicating health information to consumers. Guidelines for selecting reliable health information websites give preference to U.S. government sites over commercially funded sites. However, these websites are not useful to consumers unless they are able to read and understand them. The authors’ objective was to compare the readability of Internet health information intended for consumers found on U.S. government–funded websites versus that found on commercially funded websites. Consumer health websites were identified through a systematic Internet search. Webpages for 10 common health topics were extracted from each website. Readability of webpages was determined by 3 validated measures: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level, and SMOG Formula. Mean readability of government-funded and commercially funded websites was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Commercially funded websites were significantly more difficult to read as measured by Flesch Reading Ease (49.7 vs. 55.6 for government-funded sites, p = .002) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level (10.1 vs. 9.3, p = .012). There was no significant difference according to SMOG Formula (12.8 vs. 13.2, p = .150). The overall readability of Internet health information intended for consumers was poor. Efforts should be made to ensure that health information communicated via the Internet is easy for consumers to read and understand.     

The Gobbledygook in Online Parent-Focused Information about Child and Adolescent Mental Health

Online parent-focused informational resources play a vital step in parent decision-making about initiating child and adolescent mental health care, but their usefulness may depend on how easily the resource content can be understood. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to examine the readability and reliability of parent-focused mental health resources provided on Canadian websites. After meeting inclusion criteria, 50 documents retrieved during the search in September 2016 from websites using online health information searching strategies that would be typically employed by parents underwent analysis. Document readability was assessed using Health Canada recommended instruments: Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and the Flesch Reading-Ease scale. Reliability was assessed using Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode). Our analysis revealed that all included documents exceeded the 8th grade reading level. The mean ± SD readability scores were SMOG 11.65 ± 1.10 and FKGL 10.03 ± 1.49. Reading-ease scores showed that 42% (n = 21) of the documents were “Difficult” to read. Factorial ANOVA revealed no significant difference in readability across mental health topic areas or organizational sectors (p = > 0.05). Twenty-four percent of documents came from sites with HONcode certification. Findings suggest that almost all child and adolescent mental health information that would typically be found online by parents in Canada had readability scores that were too high for average parents to read and exceeded Health Canada recommended reading levels. Being able to locate resources online can be significantly precluded if a parent cannot understand and use information to mobilize them to accessing mental health care for their families.     

Quality of the patient-oriented information on thyroid cancer in the internet

ObjectivesThis study was conducted to analyse the readability and quality of patient education websites about thyroid cancer.MethodsYahoo!, Google and Bing were searched with their default settings using the keywords thyroid cancer, thyroid tumour, thyroid tumor, and thyroid malignancy for relevant websites. The first 50 websites obtained for each keyword and search engine were evaluated using validated Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), LIDA and DISCERN scores to assess readability, usability and reliability, and quality of information. Statistical analysis were done using non-parametric tests.ResultsThe analysis included 49 eligible websites selected out of 600 websites obtained from the search engines. Twenty-two (44.9%) web sites had obtained Health on the net foundation code of conduct (HON-code) certification. The included websites had a median FRES score of 55.3(range 25.3–85.3) and the LIDA reliability and usability scores were 22.0(range 14–30) and 39.0(range 28–50), respectively. The median DISCERN score was 48.0(range 33–63). A total DISCERN score of 50% or less (low score) was found in 28.5%(n = 14) of the websites. A significant association was found between LIDA usability and, reliability scores and DISCERN score (p<0.001, p=0.001, respectively).ConclusionThe quality of the websites, readability and usability scores were moderate or low based on the criteria used. Access to quality information may help with better informed decisions on treatment, follow up and prognosis. As the internet use by the public is ever increasing, implementing measures to ensure the quality information without a bias should be considered a priority.     

Becoming visible: assessing the availability of online sexual health information for lesbians

Research suggests that lesbians turn to the Internet for information regarding their sexual health. However, limited research has examined the availability of online sexual health resources for this population. This study evaluated the volume, scope, and readability of sexual health information available to lesbians on the Internet. The top three Nielsen-rated search engines were used to identify websites generated using the search term "lesbian sexual health." A content analysis was conducted of 25 unique, functioning websites (46 webpages total) and Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade levels were calculated. Nearly one third of the websites were located outside the United States; two were U.S. government sites. Although most sites provided information about sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS (52% to 72%), fewer provided information about safer sex practices (12% to 56%), reproductive cancers (24% to 36%), intimate partner violence (16%), family planning issues (0% to 12%), or other preventive health practices, such as mammograms and gynecological exams (4% to 44%) for lesbians. Readability of websites was much higher than recommended for health materials. Lesbians are in need of comprehensive and reliable sexual health information on the Internet. In particular, sexual health messages written in plain language are needed to encourage safer sex and other preventive practices among lesbians.     

Reading Difficulty Level of Medical Resources on Television Web Sites

ABSTRACT

Mass media plays a critical role in communicating health messages to the public. Local television stations are posting more health content on the Web; however, the difficulty level of this information has not been evaluated. Study objectives were to assess the content of health stories on local television Web sites, and to evaluate the reading level of these health messages. The top three health articles from 79 local television news Web pages were selected for analysis. Readability was assessed using SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid (FK), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). A total of 278 articles were located over a two-day search. The majority of stories were national (47.0%) and educational (48.0%) pieces. Fewer articles were breaking news (19.8%). More articles focused on both prevention and treatment (30.6%) rather than on prevention (21.6%) or treatment (21.2%) alone. Mean readability was at a senior high school level according to SMOG (Grade 11.9) and FK (Grade 10.3). Overall FRE was 51.6, implying a “fairly difficult” reading style. As broadcast news media mobilizes viewers toward online health content, they must consider the difficulty of the information and literacy abilities of their audience.     

Health literacy and the Internet: a study on the readability of Australian online health information

Objective: Almost 80% of Australian Internet users seek out health information online so the readability of this information is important. This study aimed to evaluate the readability of Australian online health information and determine if it matches the average reading level of Australians. Methods: Two hundred and fifty‐one web pages with information on 12 common health conditions were identified across sectors. Readability was assessed by the Flesch‐Kincaid (F‐K), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, with grade 8 adopted as the average Australian reading level. Results: The average reading grade measured by F‐K and SMOG was 10.54 and 12.12 respectively. The mean FRE was 47.54, a ‘difficult‐to‐read’ score. Only 0.4% of web pages were written at or below grade 8 according to SMOG. Information on dementia was the most difficult to read overall, while obesity was the most difficult among government websites. Conclusions and implications: The findings suggest that the readability of Australian health websites is above the average Australian levels of reading. A quantifiable guideline is needed to ensure online health information accommodates the reading needs of the general public to effectively use the Internet as an enabler of health literacy.     

Evaluating the health literacy demand and cultural appropriateness of online immunisation information available to refugee and migrant communities in Australia

BackgroundThe internet is a source of health information for many consumers. However, little is known about the availability of online resources about immunisation (for children and adults) directed at refugee and migrant populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health literacy demand (understandability, actionability & readability) and cultural appropriateness of immunisation resources in Australia for these communities.MethodsOur study involved two search approaches. Firstly, Google trends was used to identify the most common search terms used in Australia. Search terms used included ‘immunisation’, ‘vaccine’ and ‘refugee immunisation’ amongst others. These search terms were entered into: Google, Bing, Duck Duck Go and Yahoo and the first 5 pages of results for each search were examined. Searches were conducted from November 2018 to June 2019. Secondly, requests were sent out directly to key stakeholders in local health districts and state/territory health departments. Understandability and actionability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and the Flesch readability ease tools were used to assess readability. Cultural appropriateness was assessed using additional criteria developed by the Centre for Culture, Ethnicity and Health (CEH), Victoria, Australia.Results27/33 resources were included in the analysis. The overall mean understandability score was 70% (range: 50–100%). The overall mean actionability score of the resources was 47% (range: 0–83%). In terms of readability, the mean score was a 10.5, which was indicative of an eleventh grade reading level. The average Flesch-Kincaid readability score was 47.7. The average score for cultural appropriateness was 79% (range: 29–100%).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that there are currently not many refugee-specific resources on immunisation. Future work needs to better improve the health literacy demand of online immunisation information. Engaging with members from migrant communities is also recommended so that appropriately tailored resources are co-developed.     

A cross-section of readability of Health Information Portability and Accountability Act authorizations required with health care research

The Health Information Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) regulations require that agencies provide authorizations that can be read and understood. Agencies are responsible to comply with this regulation. It is estimated that half of Americans read at an eighth-grade reading level. All institutional review boards (IRBs) listed on the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services were contacted by investigators in this study. Fifty-one IRBs returned HIPAA templates on which readability tests could be completed. Three readability tests were used on all templates, including the Flesch Reading Ease formula, the Dale-Chall formula, and the Fry formula. For the returned templates, the mean of the Dale-Chall readability formula gave a ninth-grade level; the mean scores for the Flesch Reading Ease and Fry formulas were at a high-school reading level or above. The readability scores ranged from sixth-grade to college graduate. This study demonstrates that HIPAA authorization forms are written at too high a level for most of the population. Based on the results of this study and other similar studies, it can be concluded that consumers/patients are currently being asked to read important health-related documents that may be beyond their reading level.     

Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy

Accessibility is one of six quality criteria articulated by the European Commission in its code of conduct for health websites. Readability plays an integral part in determining a website's accessibility. Health information that is hard to read may remain inaccessible to people with low health literacy. This study aimed to calculate the readability of websites on various causes of disease. The names of 22 health conditions were entered into five search engines, and the readability of the first 10 results for each search were evaluated using Gunning FOG, SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease tests (n=352). Readability was stratified and assessed by search term, search term complexity, top-level domain and paragraph position. The mean reading grade was 12.30, and the mean FRE was 46.08, scores considered 'difficult'. Websites on certain topics were found to be even harder to read than average. Where conditions had multiple names, searching for the simplest one led to the most readable results. Websites with .gov and .nhs TLDs were the most readable while .edu sites were the least. Within texts, a trend of increasing difficulty was found with concluding paragraphs being the hardest to read. It was also found that some of the most frequent search results (such as Wikipedia pages) were amongst the hardest to read. Health professionals, with the help of public and specialised libraries, need to create and direct patients towards high-quality, plain language health information in multiple languages.     

Quality and scientific accuracy of patient-oriented information on the internet on minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer

ObjectivesAppropriate information on minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer would help the patients and their caretakers to understand the treatment process. We aimed to assess the readability, quality and scientific content of patient-oriented information on minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer on the internet.MethodsInternet search on “minimally invasive surgery for colorectal cancer”, “laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer” and “robotic surgery for colorectal cancer” was performed on search engines (Google, Yahoo! and Bing). Quality and readability were assessed by DISCERN instrument and validated Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) respectively.ResultsFifty-five websites were analysed. The median DISCERN score was 41(range:24–66) and the median FRES score was 33.9(range:10.4–59.8) indicating low readability. Twenty-seven sites (49.1%) were affiliated with hospitals or clinics. Benefits of surgery and the surgical procedure were mentioned in 76.4% and 81.8% respectively. However, pre-op preparation, surgical complications, and quality of life were not mentioned in 49(82.1%), 42(76.4%) and 44(80%) sites respectively. Overall on DISCERN, 7(12.73%) were identified as “Excellent”, 25(45.45%) as “Good” or “Moderate” and 23(41.82%) as “Poor”.ConclusionAnalysis of the quality and scientific content of patient information on MIS for CRC revealed a considerable deficiency in the information provided and sub-standard readability. Several aspects such as pre-op preparation, surgical complications and post-operative quality of life which are of concern to the patient were not discussed in a considerable proportion of articles. As the internet is expanding as a readily available source of information, steps should be taken to ensure the highest quality information.     

The Reliability and Quality of YouTube Videos as a Source of Public Health Information Regarding COVID-19 Vaccination: Cross-sectional Study

BackgroundRecent emergency authorization and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines by regulatory bodies has generated global attention. As the most popular video-sharing platform globally, YouTube is a potent medium for the dissemination of key public health information. Understanding the nature of available content regarding COVID-19 vaccination on this widely used platform is of substantial public health interest.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the reliability and quality of information on COVID-19 vaccination in YouTube videos.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study, the phrases “coronavirus vaccine” and “COVID-19 vaccine” were searched on the UK version of YouTube on December 10, 2020. The 200 most viewed videos of each search were extracted and screened for relevance and English language. Video content and characteristics were extracted and independently rated against Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct and DISCERN quality criteria for consumer health information by 2 authors.ResultsForty-eight videos, with a combined total view count of 30,100,561, were included in the analysis. Topics addressed comprised the following: vaccine science (n=18, 58%), vaccine trials (n=28, 58%), side effects (n=23, 48%), efficacy (n=17, 35%), and manufacturing (n=8, 17%). Ten (21%) videos encouraged continued public health measures. Only 2 (4.2%) videos made nonfactual claims. The content of 47 (98%) videos was scored to have low (n=27, 56%) or moderate (n=20, 42%) adherence to Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct principles. Median overall DISCERN score per channel type ranged from 40.3 (IQR 34.8-47.0) to 64.3 (IQR 58.5-66.3). Educational channels produced by both medical and nonmedical professionals achieved significantly higher DISCERN scores than those of other categories. The highest median DISCERN scores were achieved by educational videos produced by medical professionals (64.3, IQR 58.5-66.3) and the lowest median scores by independent users (18, IQR 18-20).ConclusionsThe overall quality and reliability of information on COVID-19 vaccines on YouTube remains poor. Videos produced by educational channels, especially by medical professionals, were higher in quality and reliability than those produced by other sources, including health-related organizations. Collaboration between health-related organizations and established medical and educational YouTube content producers provides an opportunity for the dissemination of high-quality information on COVID-19 vaccination. Such collaboration holds potential as a rapidly implementable public health intervention aiming to engage a wide audience and increase public vaccination awareness and knowledge.     

Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys

Purpose  To estimate readability of seven commonly used health-related quality of life instruments: SF-36, HUI, EQ-5D, QWB-SA, HALex, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and the NEI-VFQ-25. Methods  The Flesch–Kincaid (F–K) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulae were used to estimate readability for every item in each measure. Results  The percentage of items that require more than 5 years of formal schooling according to F–K was 50 for the EQ-5D, 53 for the SF-36, 80 for the VFQ-25, 85 for the QWB-SA, 100 for the HUI, HALex, and the MLHFQ. The percentage of items deemed harder than “easy” according to FRE was 50 for the SF-36, 67 for the EQ-5D, 79 for the QWB-SA, 80 for the VFQ-25, 100 for the HUI, HALex, and the MLHFQ. Conclusions  All seven surveys have a substantial number of items with high readability levels that may not be appropriate for the general population.     

Help or hinder? An assessment of the accessibility,usability, reliability and readability of disability funding website information for Australian mental health consumers

This study aimed to assess the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of those websites most likely encountered by Australian mental health consumers when using the internet to find information regarding the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). Websites were systematically identified with 127 deemed relevant for assessment in 2018. The LIDA instrument, the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level were used to evaluate the quality of information provided to mental health consumers. The study identified mediocre results for the accessibility, usability, reliability and readability of websites as they pertain to the needs of mental health consumers. Furthermore, it was identified that mental health support websites did not provide a more appropriate online experience for mental health consumers than general information websites, despite their focus on this demographic. These findings suggest a lack of understanding regarding the needs of mental health consumers and their experience of the online environment, which may in turn affect their access to information, agency and, ultimately, their uptake of the NDIS. The establishment of guidelines around enhancements to the online environment for mental health consumers would provide an experience that instils confidence, returns dignity and aids this group in realising their personal recovery journey.     

Conducting Virtual,Synchronous Focus Groups Among Black Sexual Minority Men: Qualitative Study

BackgroundFocus groups are useful to support HIV prevention research among US subpopulations, such as Black gay, Black bisexual, and other Black sexual minority men (BSMM). Virtual synchronous focus groups provide an electronic means to obtain qualitative data and are convenient to implement; however, the protocols and acceptability for conducting virtual synchronous focus groups in HIV prevention research among BSMM are lacking.ObjectiveThis paper describes the protocols and acceptability of conducting virtual synchronous focus groups in HIV prevention research among BSMMMethodsData for this study came from 8 virtual synchronous focus groups examined in 2 studies of HIV-negative BSMM in US cities, stratified by age (N=39): 2 groups of BSMM ages 18-24 years, 5 groups of BSMM ages 25-34 years, and 1 group of BSMM 35 years and older. Virtual synchronous focus groups were conducted via Zoom, and participants were asked to complete an electronic satisfaction survey distributed to their email via Qualtrics.ResultsThe age of participants ranged from 18 to 44 years (mean 28.3, SD 6.0). All participants “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they were satisfied participating in an online focus group. Only 17% (5/30) preferred providing written informed consent versus oral consent. Regarding privacy, most (30/30,100%) reported “strongly agree” or “agree” that their information was safe to share with other participants in the group. Additionally, 97% (29/30) reported being satisfied with the incentive.ConclusionsConducting virtual synchronous focus groups in HIV prevention research among BSMM is feasible. However, thorough oral informed consent with multiple opportunities for questions, culturally relevant facilitation procedures, and appropriate incentives are needed for optimal focus group participation.     

Peer Reviewed: A Comprehensive Assessment of the Difficulty Level and Cultural Sensitivity of Online Cancer Prevention Resources for Older Minority Men

Introduction

Older men are at increased risk for prostate cancer. As seniors turn to the Internet for cancer information, it is important that the resources they locate about lifestyle behaviors and screening are culturally appropriate and easy to understand. This study was a comprehensive analysis of prostate cancer risk as portrayed on the Internet with assessment of content readability and cultural sensitivity.

Methods

We selected Web sites about prostate cancer risk and prevention by comparing common sites across three top-rated search engines (Google, Yahoo!, and MSN). A total of 70 Web sites on prostate cancer containing a Web page on risk factors or prevention or both for racial and ethnic populations were included. We assessed readability of one page per Web site using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch-Kincaid (FK), and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) measures. Cultural sensitivity of the Web page was evaluated using the Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool (CSAT) and questions from a cultural sensitivity checklist.

Results

Mean readability of Web pages was Grade 12.90 (high school graduate level) using SMOG and Grade 11.20 according to FK. Mean FRE was 45.04 (fairly difficult to read). The mean CSAT score was 2.78 and classified as culturally sensitive. Of the 36 Web pages considered culturally sensitive (CSAT >2.50), 75% did not portray images of representative racial or ethnic individuals as intended readers or as being at high risk for prostate cancer. Older adults and seniors were identified as intended readers on 73% of Web pages.

Conclusion

Online cancer resources are targeting appropriate age groups (high-risk older adults). However, the pages required fairly high-level reading skills and had limited cultural sensitivity. These factors make the pages unsuitable for diverse Internet users.     

Readability and Missing Data Rates in CAHPS 2.0 Medicare Survey in African American and White Medicare Respondents

PurposeTo examine associations between readability of survey items and missing data rates in a sample of white and African-American Medicare enrollees in managed care plans.MethodsConsumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider and Systems (CAHPS) 2.0 health plan survey data collected from 139,284 respondents (127,524 whites and 11,760 African Americans) in 321 health plans. Product-moment correlations were computed between Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) readability estimates and the CAHPS item-missing data rates.ResultsF-K reading levels for items ranged from 4.8 to 17.7 with a mean of 8.9 across items. Missing data rates ranged from 1% to 10%, with African Americans having significantly higher missing data rates. Correlations between missing data rates and item-level readability were statistically significant for whites (r = 0.33, P = .0515) and African Americans (r = 0.37, P = .0284).ConclusionsThe significant associations between missing data rates and item-level readability estimates indicate that the completion of survey items varies by their readability. Enhancing the readability of survey items can improve the inclusion of survey data collected from different respondents.     

Characterizing Anchoring Bias in Vaccine Comparator Selection Due to Health Care Utilization With COVID-19 and Influenza: Observational Cohort Study

BackgroundObservational data enables large-scale vaccine safety surveillance but requires careful evaluation of the potential sources of bias. One potential source of bias is the index date selection procedure for the unvaccinated cohort or unvaccinated comparison time (“anchoring”).ObjectiveHere, we evaluated the different index date selection procedures for 2 vaccinations: COVID-19 and influenza.MethodsFor each vaccine, we extracted patient baseline characteristics on the index date and up to 450 days prior and then compared them to the characteristics of the unvaccinated patients indexed on (1) an arbitrary date or (2) a date of a visit. Additionally, we compared vaccinated patients indexed on the date of vaccination and the same patients indexed on a prior date or visit.ResultsCOVID-19 vaccination and influenza vaccination differ drastically from each other in terms of the populations vaccinated and their status on the day of vaccination. When compared to indexing on a visit in the unvaccinated population, influenza vaccination had markedly higher covariate proportions, and COVID-19 vaccination had lower proportions of most covariates on the index date. In contrast, COVID-19 vaccination had similar covariate proportions when compared to an arbitrary date. These effects attenuated, but were still present, with a longer lookback period. The effect of day 0 was present even when the patients served as their own controls.ConclusionsPatient baseline characteristics are sensitive to the choice of the index date. In vaccine safety studies, unexposed index event should represent vaccination settings. Study designs previously used to assess influenza vaccination must be reassessed for COVID-19 to account for a potentially healthier population and lack of medical activity on the day of vaccination.     

COVID-19 Vaccine Perception in South Korea: Web Crawling Approach

BackgroundThe US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization emphasized vaccination against COVID-19 because physical distancing proved inadequate to mitigate death, illness, and massive economic loss.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate Korean citizens’ perceptions of vaccines by examining their views on COVID-19 vaccines, their positive and negative perceptions of each vaccine, and ways to enhance policies to increase vaccine acceptance.MethodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed posts on NAVER and Instagram to examine Korean citizens’ perception of COVID-19 vaccines. The keywords searched were “vaccine,” “AstraZeneca,” and “Pfizer.” In total 8100 posts in NAVER and 5291 posts in Instagram were sampled through web crawling. Morphology analysis was performed, overlapping or meaningless words were removed, sentiment analysis was implemented, and 3 public health professionals reviewed the results.ResultsThe findings revealed a negative perception of COVID-19 vaccines; of the words crawled, the proportion of negative words for AstraZeneca was 71.0% (476/670) and for Pfizer was 56.3% (498/885). Among words crawled with “vaccine,” “good” ranked first, with a frequency of 13.43% (312/2323). Meanwhile, “side effect” ranked highest, with a frequency of 29.2% (163/559) for “AstraZeneca,” but 0.6% (4/673) for “Pfizer.” With “vaccine,” positive words were more frequently used, whereas with “AstraZeneca” and “Pfizer” negative words were prevalent.ConclusionsThere is a negative perception of AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines in Korea, with 1 in 4 people refusing vaccination. To address this, accurate information needs to be shared about vaccines including AstraZeneca, and the experiences of those vaccinated. Furthermore, government communication about risk management is required to increase the AstraZeneca vaccination rate for herd immunity before the vaccine expires.     

Readability of commercial versus generic health instructions for condoms

Despite the fact that condoms are increasingly recommended for the prevention of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) and other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and have long been used as a barrier method of contraception, little is known about the readability of the range of materials that have been written exclusively for consumers on how to use a condom. The authors described and compared the reading comprehension levels of condom patient package inserts (PPIs) prepared commercially and those generic instructions (GIs) prepared by health care providers. Fifteen sets of PPIs and 30 sets of GIs were analyzed using six standard readability formulas (Fry, Fog, Dale‐Chall, Flesch, Flesch‐Kincaid, SMOG). Readability levels of the instructions ranged from grade 6.3 to 13.7. The PPIs required a significantly higher grade level for comprehension (mean 10.32) than the GIs (mean 8.69). This study suggests that instructions prepared by both sources may require a reading level above that of many consumers who need information on how to use a condom.