Advertisement

Information for oral and maxillofacial patients: can it be improved?

  • H. Parvez
    Affiliations
    Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King’s College London, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • M.S. Noorani
    Affiliations
    Department of Orthodontics, Institute of Dentistry, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • N. Pandis
    Affiliations
    Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Dental School/Medical Faculty, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse7 CH-3010, Bern, Switzerland
    Search for articles by this author
  • M.T. Cobourne
    Affiliations
    Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King’s College London, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author
  • J. Seehra
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King’s College London, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom.
    Affiliations
    Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King’s College London, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust, London, SE1 9RT, United Kingdom
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      The aim and objective of this study was to evaluate the quality and readability of leaflet and online Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery patient information leaflets (PILs). The quality, readability and grade level of each PIL was assessed using the DISCERN, Flesch Reading Ease and Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level instruments respectively. In total, 140 patient information leaflets were assessed. For both leaflet and online PILs, many items of the DISCERN instrument were deemed of low quality and poorly reported. The median overall quality score was 30.2. Variation in the quality and readability scores between leaflet and online PILs and those produced by various societies was evident. Overall, PILs were deemed to be of moderate quality. Online PILs were of lower quality, more difficult to read and aimed at a higher reading age level.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • D’Cruz L.
        • Kaney H.
        Consent-a new era begins.
        Br Dent J. 2015; 219: 57-59
        • Brown H.
        • Ramchandani M.
        • Gillow J.T.
        • et al.
        Are patient information leaflets contributing to informed consent for cataract surgery?.
        J Med Ethics. 2004; 30: 218-220
        • Bennett J.
        • Bridger P.
        Communicating with patients.
        BMJ. 1992; 305: 1294
        • Ley P.
        Satisfaction, compliance and communication.
        Br J Clin Psychol. 1982; 21: 241-254
        • Stephens R.
        • Ryan F.S.
        • Cunningham S.J.
        Information-seeking behavior of adolescent orthodontic patients.
        Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143: 303-309
        • Dickinson D.
        • Raynor D.K.
        • Duman M.
        Patient information leaflets for medicines: using consumer testing to determine the most effective design.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2001; 43: 147-159
        • Weinman J.
        Providing written information for patients: psychological considerations.
        J R Soc Med. 1990; 83: 303-305
        • Payne S.
        • Large S.
        • Jarrett N.
        • et al.
        Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: a national survey.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 1792
        • Kenny T.
        • Wilson R.G.
        • Purves I.N.
        • et al.
        A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): a review of past, present and future use.
        Fam Pract. 1998; 15: 471-479
        • Charnock D.
        • Shepperd S.
        • Needham G.
        • et al.
        DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.
        J Epidemiol Commun Health. 1999; 53: 105-111
        • D’alessandro D.M.
        • Kingsley P.
        • Johnson-West J.
        The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web.
        Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001; 155: 807-812
        • Demir F.
        • Ozsaker E.
        • Ilce A.O.
        The quality and suitability of written educational materials for patients.
        J Clin Nurs. 2008; 17: 259-265
        • Lewis M.A.
        • Newton J.T.
        An evaluation of the quality of commercially produced patient information leaflets.
        Br Dent J. 2006; 201: 114-117
        • Seehra J.
        • Cockerham L.
        • Pandis N.
        A quality assessment of orthodontic patient information leaflets.
        Prog Orthod. 2016; 17: 1-6
        • Rees C.E.
        • Ford J.E.
        • Sheard C.E.
        Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend?.
        Patient Educ Couns. 2003; 49: 263-272
        • Kaicker J.
        • Debono V.B.
        • Dang W.
        • et al.
        Assessment of the quality and variability of health information on chronic pain websites using the DISCERN instrument.
        BMC Med. 2010; 8: 59
        • Batchelor J.M.
        • Ohya Y.
        Use of the DISCERN instrument by patients and health professionals to assess information resources on treatments for asthma and atopic dermatitis.
        Allergol Int. 2009; 58: 141-145
        • Hargrave D.R.
        • Hargrave U.A.
        • Bouffet E.
        Quality of health information on the internet in pediatric neuro-oncology.
        Neuro-oncology. 2006; 8: 175-182
        • Harwood A.
        • Harrison J.E.
        How readable are orthodontic patient information leaflets?.
        J Orthod. 2004; 31: 210-219
        • Smart J.M.
        • Burling D.
        Radiology and the internet: a systematic review of patient information resources.
        Clin Radiol. 2001; 56: 867-870
        • Flesch R.
        A new readability yardstick.
        J Appl Psychol. 1948; 32: 221-233
        • Kincaid J.P.
        • Fishburne Jr., R.P.
        • Rogers R.L.
        • et al.
        Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report.
        Naval Technical Training Command, Millington, TN1975: 8
        • Williamson J.M.
        • Martin A.G.
        Analysis of patient information leaflets provided by a district general hospital by the Flesch and Flesch-Kincaid method.
        Int J Clin Pract. 2010; 64: 1824-1831
        • Coiera E.
        The Internet’s challenge to health care provision.
        BMJ. 1996; 312: 3-4
        • Grewal P.
        • Alagaratnam S.
        The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet.
        Int J Surg. 2013; 11: 410-413