Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement

Crawford Manning, Fay; Greenall, C.; Hawarden, Ashley; Bullock, Laurna; Leyland, S.; Jinks, Clare; Protheroe, Joanne; Paskins, Zoe

Abstract

Purpose: Identify commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment, appraise the quality and make recommendations for improvement. Methods: Patient information resources were purposively sampled and text extracted. Data extracts underwent assessment of readability (Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) and quality (modified International Patient Decision Aid Standards (m-IPDAS)). A thematic analysis was conducted, and key words and phrases used to describe osteoporosis and its treatment identified. Findings were presented to a stakeholder group who identified inaccuracies, contradictions and discussed optimal language. Results: Nine patient information resources were selected, including webpages, a video and booklets (available online), from government, charity and private healthcare providers. No resource met acceptable readability scores for both measures of osteoporosis information and drug information. Quality scores from the modified IPDAS ranged from 21% to 64% (7-21/33). Thematic analysis was informed by Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model of Disease. 13 subthemes relating to the identity, causes, timeline, consequences and controllability of osteoporosis were identified. Phrases and words from 9 subthemes were presented to the stakeholder group who identified a predominance of medical technical language, misleading terms about osteoporotic bone and treatment benefits, and contradictions about symptoms. They recommended key descriptors for providers to use to describe osteoporosis and treatment benefits. Conclusions: This study found that commonly accessed patient information resources about osteoporosis have highly variable quality, scored poorly on readability assessments and contain inconsistencies and inaccuracies. We produced practical recommendations for information providers to support improvements in understanding, relevance, balance and bias, and to address information gaps

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Dec 14, 2020
• Publication Date: Jan 27, 2021
• Journal: Osteoporosis International
• Print ISSN: 0937-941X
• Publisher: Springer Verlag
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 32
• Pages: pages1567–1584
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05800-7
• Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00198-020-05800-7