↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of internet-based patient education materials from internal medicine subspecialty organizations: will patients understand them?

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
Title
Evaluation of internet-based patient education materials from internal medicine subspecialty organizations: will patients understand them?
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11739-017-1611-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R. Hansberry, Nitin Agarwal, Elizabeth S. John, Ann M. John, Prateek Agarwal, James C. Reynolds, Stephen R. Baker

Abstract

The majority of Americans use the Internet daily, if not more often, and many search online for health information to better understand a diagnosis they have been given or to research treatment options. The average American reads at an eighth-grade level. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the readability of online patient education materials on the websites of 14 professional organizations representing the major internal medicine subspecialties. We used ten well-established quantitative readability scales to assess written text from patient education materials published on the websites of the major professional organizations representing the following subspecialty groups: allergy and immunology, cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, hematology, hospice and palliative care, infectious disease, nephrology, oncology, pulmonology and critical care, rheumatology, sleep medicine, and sports medicine. Collectively the 540 articles analyzed were written at an 11th-grade level (SD 1.4 grade levels). The sleep medicine and nephrology websites had the most readable materials, written at an academic grade level of 8.5 ± 1.5 and 9.0 ± 0.2, respectively. Material at the infectious disease site was written at the most difficult level, with average readability corresponding to grades 13.9 ± 0.3. None of the patient education materials we reviewed conformed to the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) guidelines requiring that patient education articles be written at a third- to seventh-grade reading level. If these online resources were rewritten, it is likely that more patients would derive benefit from reading them.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 79 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 26 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 8%
Psychology 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 27 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2020.
All research outputs
#13,059,047
of 23,009,818 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#456
of 953 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,428
of 420,342 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#9
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,009,818 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 953 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,342 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.