UC San Diego

Background and objective

Readability of patient education materials is of utmost importance to ensure understandability and dissemination of health care information in uro-oncology. We aimed to investigate the readability of the official patient education materials of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and American Urology Association (AUA).

Methods

Patient education materials for prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, penile, and urethral cancers were retrieved from the respective organizations. Readability was assessed via the WebFX online tool for Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and for reading grade levels by Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Smog Index (SI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of ≥70 and with the other readability indexes <7 according to European Union recommendations. This study assessed only objective readability and no other metrics such as understandability.

Key findings and limitations

Most patient education materials failed to meet the recommended threshold for laypersons. The mean readability for EAU patient education material was as follows: FRES 50.9 (standard error [SE]: 3.0), and FKGL, GFS, SI, CLI, and ARI all with scores ≥7. The mean readability for AUA patient material was as follows: FRES 64.0 (SE: 1.4), with all of FKGL, GFS, SI, and ARI scoring ≥7 readability. Only 13 out of 70 (18.6%) patient education materials' paragraphs met the readability requirements. The mean readability for bladder cancer patient education materials was the lowest, with a FRES of 36.7 (SE: 4.1).

Conclusions and clinical implications

Patient education materials from leading urological associations reveal readability levels beyond the recommended thresholds for laypersons and may not be understood easily by patients. There is a future need for more patient-friendly reading materials.

Patient summary

This study checked whether health information about different cancers was easy to read. Most of it was too hard for patients to understand.