Objective: To assess the readability and comprehensibility of web-based German-language patient education material (PEM) issued by urological associations. Materials and Methods: German PEM available in June 2017 was obtained from the European Association of Urology (EAU), German (DGU), Swiss (SGU) and Austrian (ÖGU) Association of Urology websites. Each educational text was analyzed separately using 4 well-established readability assessment tools: the Amstad Test (AT), G-SMOG (SMOG), Wiener Sachtextformel (WS) and the Lesbarkeitsindex (LIX). Results: The EAU has issued PEM on 8 topics, the DGU 22 and the SGU 5. The ÖGU refers to the PEMs published by the DGU. Calculation of grade levels (SMOG, WS, LIX) showed readability scores of the 7th-14th grades. The easiest readability was found for materials on Nocturia and Urinary Incontinence issued by the EAU. Kidney Cancer and Infertility, issued by the DGU had the hardest readability. The EAU achieved the best median AT score, followed by the SGU, and the DGU. Conclusion: Remarkable differences between readability were found for the PEMs issued by EAU, DGU and SGU. Materials published by the EAU were the easiest to read. Improving the readability of certain PEMs is of crucial importance to meet patient needs and act in the interests of a growing, self-informing German-speaking patient community.

Keywords:
Readability assessment, Patient education material, European Association of Urology, DGU, SGU
1.
Fox S: Online health search 2006: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Online_Health_2006.pdf. (accessed May 24, 2008).
2.
Mobile Health Information Audience Jumps 125 Percent In the Past Yzear. http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2012/01/mobile-health-information-audience-jumps-125-percent-in-the-past-year.
3.
Hänig S: Internetpräsenz: frischer anstrich für das virtuelle sprechzimmer. Dtsch Arztebl 2010;107:12.
4.
Kummervold PE, Chronaki CE, Lausen B, Prokosch HU, Rasmussen J, Santana S, Staniszewski A, Wangberg SC: eHealth trends in Europe 2005-2007: a population-based survey. J Med Internet Res 2008;10:e42.
5.
Madden M, Fox S: Finding Answers Online in Sickness and in Health. Pew Internet and Amer- ican Life Project 2006. Available at http://www.pewinternet.org//media/Files/Reports/2006/PIP_Health_Decisions_2006.pdf.pdf (accessed December 28, 2012).
6.
OECD: Literacy in the Information Age. Final Report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris, Statistics Canada, 2000.
7.
Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K: Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:97-107.
8.
Abt D, Warzinek E, Schmid HP, Haile SR, Engeler DS: Influence of patient education on morbidity caused by ureteral stents. Int J Urol 2015;22:679-683.
9.
Eloy JA, Li S, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Setzen M: Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:848-854.
10.
Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Eloy JA: Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012;147:466-471.
11.
Colaco M, Svider PF, Agarwal N, Eloy JA, Jackson IM: Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol 2013;189:1048-1052.
12.
Dalziel K, Leveridge MJ, Steele SS, Izard JP: An analysis of the readability of patient information materials for common urological conditions. Can Urol Assoc J 2016;10:167-170.
13.
Greywoode J, Bluman E, Spiegel J, Boon M: Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery website. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2009;141:555-558.
14.
Weiss BD: Health Literacy and Patient Safety: Help Patients Understand. Manual for Clinicians, ed 2. Chicago, American Medical Association, American Medical Foundation, 2007.
15.
https://medlineplus.gov/etr.html (accessed June 2017).
16.
Esfahani BJ, Faron A, Roth KS, Grimminger PP, Luers JC: [Systematic readability analysis of medical texts on websites of German university clinics for general and abdominal surgery]. Zentralbl Chir 2016;141:639-644.
17.
Luers JC, Gostian AO, Roth KS, Beutner D: [Readability of medical texts on websites of German ENT university hospitals]. HNO 2013;61:648-654.
18.
http://www.uro.at (accessed June 2017).
22.
https://www.krebsliga.ch (accessed June 2017).
23.
AmstadT: Wie Verständlich Sind Unsere Zeitungen? Dissertation, Universität Zürich, 1978.
24.
Flesch R: A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221-233.
25.
Horner SD, Surratt D, Juliusson S: Improving readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs 2000;17:15-23.
26.
Sheppard ED, Hyde Z, Florence MN, McGwin G, Kirchner JS, Ponce BA: Improving the readability of online foot and ankle patient education materials. Foot Ankle Int 2014;35:1282-1286.
27.
Kandula S, Zeng-Treitler Q: Creating a gold standard for the readability measurement of health texts. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2008;6:353-357.
28.
Michielutte R, Bahnson J, Dignan MB, Schroeder EM: The use of illustrations and narrative text style to improve readability of a health education brochure. J Cancer Educ 1992;7:251-260.
29.
Doak C, Doak L, Miller K, Wilder L: Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Washington, American Public Health Association, 1994.
30.
Best KH: Quantitative Linguistik. Eine Annäherung. Peust & Gutschmidt G, 2006.
31.
Klare GR: The Measurement of Readability: Useful Information for Communicators. ACM J Comput Doc 24, 2000.
32.
McLaughlin GH: SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading 1969;12:8.
33.
Bamberger R,Vanecek E: Lesen-Verstehen-Lernen-Schreiben. Die Schwierigkeitsstufen von Texten in Deutscher Sprache. Wien, Jugend & Volk Verlagsgesellschaft, 1984.
34.
Björnsson CH: Readability of Newspapers in 11 Languages. Read Res Q 1983;18:480-493.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.