Richards, Elliott G.

INTRODUCTION: As the Internet has become the primary source of health information for most patients, there is limited information regarding the readability of available online information for patients in obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Twenty-four phrases from “Top Searches on ACOG” were used as search terms, using search engine optimization tools, mirroring likely patient search patterns. Contents were then analyzed for readability using four validated readability formulas, including Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFOG). RESULTS: A total of 214 webpages were evaluated and majority had readability scores higher than currently recommended for patient-directed information. The mean FRES was 56.0 (range, 26.6 to 97.0), with majority (99%) of the sites scoring less than 80, correlating with a “difficult” level of reading. Mean readability grade levels were as follows: 6.86 for FKGL; 8.39 for SMOG; and 8.28 for GFOG. Of the 24 topic areas, only 11 (45.8%) had easily accessible patient related documents published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the first study providing a broad assessment of readability of currently available online patient related information in obstetrics and gynecology. Consistent with other specialties, the readability of most online obstetrics and gynecology patient materials is unsatisfactory. While readability level is only one component of useful patient-oriented literature, there is a great need for effective and easily accessible online patient-oriented websites as health literacy can impact outcomes.

AbstractObjectiveA common concern of utilizing prenatal advanced genetic testing is that a result of uncertain clinical significance will increase patient anxiety. However, prenatal ultrasound may also yield findings of uncertain significance, such as ‘soft markers’ for fetal aneuploidy, or findings with variable prognosis, such as mild ventriculomegaly. In this study we compared risk perception following uncertain test results from each modality.MethodsA single survey with repeated measures design was administered to 133 pregnant women. It included ‘intolerance of uncertainty’ questions, two hypothetical scenarios involving prenatal ultrasound or advanced genetic testing, and response questions. The primary outcome was risk perception score.ResultsRisk perception did not vary significantly between ultrasound and genetic scenarios (p = 0.17). The genetic scenario scored a higher accuracy (p = 0.04) but lower sense of empowerment (p = 0.01). Furthermore, patients were more likely to seek additional testing after an ultrasound than after genetic testing (p = 0.05). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes including perception of life‐altering consequences and hypothetical worry, anxiety, confusion, or medical care decisions.ConclusionsOur data suggest that uncertain findings on prenatal genetic testing do not elicit a higher perception of risk or anxiety when compared to ultrasound findings of comparable uncertainty. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.