Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

The readability of general practice websites: a cross-sectional analysis of all general practice websites in Scotland

View through CrossRef
BackgroundGeneral practice websites are an increasingly important point of interaction, but their readability is largely unexplored. One in four adults struggle with basic literacy, and there is a socioeconomic gradient. Readable content is a prerequisite to promoting health literacy.AimTo assess general practice website readability by analysing text and design factors, and to assess whether practices adapted their website text to the likely literacy levels of their populations.Design and settingWebsites for all general practices across Scotland were analysed from March to December 2019, using a cross-sectional design.MethodText was extracted from five webpages per website and eight text readability factors were measured, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The relationship between readability and a practice population’s level of deprivation, measured using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), was assessed. Overall, 10 design factors contributing to readability and accessibility were scored.ResultsIn total, 86.4% (n = 813/941) of Scottish practices had a website; 22.9% (n = 874/3823) of webpages were written at, or below, the government-recommended reading level for online content (9–14 years old), and the content of the remaining websites, 77.1% (n = 2949/3823), was suitable for a higher reading age. Of all webpages, 80.5% (n = 3077/3823) were above the recommended level for easy-to-understand ‘plain English’. There was no statistically significant association between webpage reading age and SIMD. Only 6.7% (n = 51/764) of websites achieved all design and accessibility recommendations.ConclusionChanges to practice websites could improve readability and promote health literacy, but practices will need financial resources and ongoing technical support if this is to be achieved and maintained. Failure to provide readable and accessible websites may widen health inequalities; the topic will become increasingly important as online service use accelerates.
Title: The readability of general practice websites: a cross-sectional analysis of all general practice websites in Scotland
Description:
BackgroundGeneral practice websites are an increasingly important point of interaction, but their readability is largely unexplored.
One in four adults struggle with basic literacy, and there is a socioeconomic gradient.
Readable content is a prerequisite to promoting health literacy.
AimTo assess general practice website readability by analysing text and design factors, and to assess whether practices adapted their website text to the likely literacy levels of their populations.
Design and settingWebsites for all general practices across Scotland were analysed from March to December 2019, using a cross-sectional design.
MethodText was extracted from five webpages per website and eight text readability factors were measured, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.
The relationship between readability and a practice population’s level of deprivation, measured using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), was assessed.
Overall, 10 design factors contributing to readability and accessibility were scored.
ResultsIn total, 86.
4% (n = 813/941) of Scottish practices had a website; 22.
9% (n = 874/3823) of webpages were written at, or below, the government-recommended reading level for online content (9–14 years old), and the content of the remaining websites, 77.
1% (n = 2949/3823), was suitable for a higher reading age.
Of all webpages, 80.
5% (n = 3077/3823) were above the recommended level for easy-to-understand ‘plain English’.
There was no statistically significant association between webpage reading age and SIMD.
Only 6.
7% (n = 51/764) of websites achieved all design and accessibility recommendations.
ConclusionChanges to practice websites could improve readability and promote health literacy, but practices will need financial resources and ongoing technical support if this is to be achieved and maintained.
Failure to provide readable and accessible websites may widen health inequalities; the topic will become increasingly important as online service use accelerates.

Related Results

Readability of Patient Education Material on Ankle Arthroplasty
Readability of Patient Education Material on Ankle Arthroplasty
Category: Ankle; Ankle Arthritis Introduction/Purpose: Health literacy has recently gained attention in the literature as it has been consistently shown to be an important predicto...
Quality of Web-Based Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Health Care Transition: Website Content Analysis
Quality of Web-Based Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Health Care Transition: Website Content Analysis
Abstract Background Adolescents and young adults with sickle cell disease (SCD) transitioning from pediatric to adult health care face a high-ris...
Quality of Online Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Healthcare Transition: A Scoping Review (Preprint)
Quality of Online Sickle Cell Disease Resources for Healthcare Transition: A Scoping Review (Preprint)
BACKGROUND Adolescents and young adults with Sickle Cell Disease (SCD) transitioning from pediatric to adult healthcare face a high-risk period associated w...
(021) ChatGPT's Ability to Assess Quality and Readability of Online Medical Information
(021) ChatGPT's Ability to Assess Quality and Readability of Online Medical Information
Abstract Introduction Health literacy plays a crucial role in enabling patients to understand and effectively use medical inform...
A Comparative Study of the Accuracy and Readability of Responses from Four Generative AI Models to COVID-19-Related Questions
A Comparative Study of the Accuracy and Readability of Responses from Four Generative AI Models to COVID-19-Related Questions
The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy and readability of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-prevention and control knowledge texts generated by four current generat...

Back to Top