MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180380509 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000008164

Facial Paralysis Online Educational Resources: Readability and Benefit to Patient Education

2021· editorial· en· W3180380509 on OpenAlexaff
Mithila Somasundaram, Christine B. Novak, Ronald M. Zuker, Gregory H. Borschel

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReadabilityMedicinePalsyFacial paralysisReading (process)Bell PalsyComprehensionHealth literacyParalysisAudiologyMedical educationHealth careBell's palsySurgeryAlternative medicineLinguisticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing numbers of persons rely on the internet for medical information.1 Patients with facial paralysis are presented with many complex management options, and the terminology related to facial paralysis and treatments can be complex.2 Patient decision-making requires good comprehension of medical information. With reported high rates of low health literacy, it is essential to adhere to the minimum recommended standard of a grade 6 reading level for educational resources.3,4 We evaluated the readability of online education resources related to facial nerve disorders published by medical institutions, health systems, professional organizations, and governments. An internet search was performed using the terms “Moebius syndrome,” “facial palsy,” “facial paralysis,” and “Bell’s palsy” and included websites that (1) presented educational information in English about the diagnosis, assessment, and/or treatment and (2) were published by health care and educational institutions, medical associations/societies, or governments. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch reading ease scores were assessed for each webpage (acceptable recommendations: Flesch-Kincaid grade level <6.0, Flesch reading ease score >80.0). Our search, conducted in April of 2020, retrieved 78 webpages with the terms “Moebius syndrome” (n = 7) and “facial palsy,” “facial paralysis,” and “Bell’s palsy” (n = 71). Most pages failed to meet the recommended standards, with mean Flesch-Kincaid grade levels above 6.0 and mean Flesch reading ease scores below 80.0. The grade 6 reading level was rare among the websites searched (“facial palsy,” “facial paralysis,” and “Bell’s palsy,” n = 5; “Moebius syndrome,” n = 0). The mean reading ease score of the “Moebius syndrome” websites was significantly lower (p = 0.01) compared to the scores of the “facial palsy,” “facial paralysis,” and “Bell’s palsy” websites (Table 1). Health system websites demonstrated significantly lower mean reading ease scores (p = 0.02) and greater mean Flesch-Kincaid grade levels (p = 0.01) compared to other organization types (Fig. 1). Table 1. - Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Flesch Reading Ease Score with Search Terms Search Term “Moebius Syndrome” Search Terms “Facial Palsy,” “Facial Paralysis,” “Bell’s Palsy” p Flesch-Kincaid grade level,* mean ± SD 11.2 ± 1.8 9.8 ± 2.4 0.33 Flesch reading ease,† mean ± SD 41.4 ± 9.8 54.8 ± 12.3 0.01 *Flesch-Kincaid grade level indicates the reading difficulty based on grade level. Recommended, <grade 6.†Flesch reading ease score indicates the level of “ease” to read text (100-point scale, with higher scores indicated easier to read). Recommended, >80.0. Fig. 1.: Comparison of readability metrics and source of online resource. Websites from health systems demonstrated significantly lower mean reading ease scores (p = 0.02) and greater mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level (p = 0.01) compared to medical society and government websites.Our study found that most online educational resources on facial nerve disorders published by hospital/health systems, education institutions, medical societies, and governments failed to meet the recommended grade 6 reading level. This is particularly important in conditions related to facial nerve dysfunction, which are complex and may be challenging to comprehend. Patient education is an essential component of medical and surgical care. Online resources should be written at the recommended reading level to ensure that patients seeking information related to facial paralysis can better understand this information. Studies evaluating the readability of online educational resources on other topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery report similar results and highlight the potential for reduced comprehension of these online resources.4,5 A limitation of our study was English-language restriction and the target audiences for the websites. Some websites reviewed were targeted to provide information to medical professionals and patients. Resources directed toward medical specialists may include complex medical and anatomic terms that may inflate the readability statistics. Most online education resources related to facial nerve disorders fail to meet readability standards and highlight a common problem related to online surgical resources for patients and their families. To ensure and promote better health education, medical professionals, website content designers, and writers should adhere to the recommended standards for readability to maximize patient comprehension. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive SurgerySame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207