↓ Skip to main content

Readability, Content, and Quality Assessment of Web-Based Patient Education Materials Addressing Neuraxial Labor Analgesia

Overview of attention for article published in Anesthesia and analgesia, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Readability, Content, and Quality Assessment of Web-Based Patient Education Materials Addressing Neuraxial Labor Analgesia
Published in
Anesthesia and analgesia, November 2015
DOI 10.1213/ane.0000000000000888
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Studies in a variety of disciplines have shown that the readability of Web-based patient education materials is above that of the sixth grade reading level recommended by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The aim of this study was to evaluate the readability, content, and quality of English- and Spanish-language patient education materials addressing neuraxial labor analgesia. The websites of 122 U.S. academic medical centers with obstetric anesthesia divisions were searched for English- and Spanish-language patient education materials. Readability of English-language patient education materials was assessed with 3 validated indices: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook. Readability of Spanish-language patient education materials was assessed using the Spanish Lexile Measure. A 1-sample t test was used to evaluate the mean readability level against the recommended sixth grade reading level. A scoring matrix was developed to evaluate the content of patient education materials. Website quality was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print. We identified 72 English-language and 29 Spanish-language patient education materials. The mean readability levels of all patient education materials were higher than the recommended sixth grade reading level using all indices (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 9.1 ± 1.9, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook: 8.6 ± 1.4, Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook: 11.8 ± 2.1; P < 0.001 for all). All patient education materials discussed the benefits of neuraxial analgesia. However, only 14% (upper 95% confidence interval: 24%) discussed contraindications to neuraxial anesthesia. Postdural puncture headache and hypotension were the most commonly addressed complications (92%). All other complications were addressed by less than half of patient education materials. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print scores were consistent with poor website understandability (median score, 64%; interquartile range, 64-73). The mean readability of Web-based patient education materials addressing neuraxial labor analgesia was above the recommended sixth grade reading level. Although most patient education materials explained the benefits of neuraxial analgesia, possible contraindications and complications were not consistently presented. The content, readability, and quality of patient education materials are poor and should be improved to help patients make more informed decisions about analgesic options during labor and delivery.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Master 8 11%
Researcher 8 11%
Other 7 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 20 27%
Unknown 18 24%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 44%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Linguistics 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#3,783,460
of 34,410,315 outputs
Outputs from Anesthesia and analgesia
#1,207
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,932
of 320,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anesthesia and analgesia
#11
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,410,315 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 320,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.