Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement
Open Access
- 27 January 2021
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Osteoporosis International
- Vol. 32 (8), 1567-1584
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05800-7
Abstract
Patient information is important to help patients fully participate in their healthcare. Commonly accessed osteoporosis patient information resources were identified and assessed for readability, quality, accuracy and consistency. Resources contained inconsistencies and scored low when assessed for quality and readability. We recommend optimal language and identify information gaps to address. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement. Methods Patient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and keywords and phrases were used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies and contradictions and discussed optimal language. Results Nine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21 to 64% (7-21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Disease. Thirteen subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits. Conclusions This study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contained inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps.Funding Information
- National Institute for Health Research (CS-2018-18-ST2-010)
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisionsPublished by Wiley ,2014
- Patient Involvement in Health Care Decision Making: A ReviewIranian Red Crescent Medical Journal, 2014
- Basing information on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the scientific evidence: a quality dimension of the International Patient Decision Aid StandardsBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 2013
- Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumorsJournal of Neuro-Oncology, 2012
- Readability of Online Patient Education Materials on Adult Reconstruction Web SitesThe Journal of Arthroplasty, 2012
- Assessing the Quality of Decision Support Technologies Using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi)PLOS ONE, 2009
- Constructing osteoarthritis through discourse – a qualitative analysis of six patient information leaflets on osteoarthritisBMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 2007
- Using thematic analysis in psychologyQualitative Research in Psychology, 2006
- Reading Level of Drug Information Printouts: A Barrier to Effective Communication of Patient Medication InformationDrug Information Journal, 2000
- Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?BMJ, 1999