A useful way to prepare the public for disasters is to teach them where to get information. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the readability and appropriateness of the content of websites prepared for the public on disaster preparedness.

In September-October 2022, we evaluated 95 disaster preparedness websites (intended for the public) using the Ateşman Readability Index, JAMA criteria, DISCERN, and a new researcher-created content comparison form. Evaluation scores were compared according to information sources.

Of the websites included in the research, 45.2% represented government institutions (GIG), 38.0% non-profit organizations (NPOG), 8.4% municipal organizations (MOG), and 8.4% other organizations (OG). Those which scored above average on the websites were 36.8% on the content evaluation, 51.6% on the DISCERN scale, 53.7% on the Ateşman Readability Index, and 55.8% on the JAMA criteria. The content evaluation form showed that the scores of the websites belonging to the MOG were higher than the scores of the other websites. Others group websites also scored higher than altered websites on the JAMA criteria.

The study revealed that websites created to increase public knowledge on disaster preparedness are not good enough in terms of readability, quality, and content.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) groups can provide valuable input to create more accessible study documents with less jargon. However, we don't know whether this procedure improves accessibility for potential participants.

We assessed whether participant information sheets were rated as more accessible after PPI review and which aspects of information sheets and study design were important to mental health patients compared with a control group with no mental health service use.

This was a double-blind quasi-experimental study using a mixed-methods explanatory design. Patients and control participants quantitatively rated pre- and post-review documents. Semi-structured interviews were thematically analysed to gain qualitative feedback on opinions of information sheets and studies. Two-way multivariate analysis of variance was used to detect differences in ratings between pre- and post-review documents.

We found no significant (P < 0.05) improvements in patient (n = 15) or control group (n = 21) ratings after PPI review. Patients and controls both rated PPI as of low importance in studies and considered the study rationale as most important. However, PPI was often misunderstood, with participants believing that it meant lay patients would take over the design and administration of the study. Qualitative findings highlight the importance of clear, friendly and visually appealing information sheets.

Researchers should be aware of what participants want to know about so they can create information sheets addressing these priorities, for example, explaining why the research is necessary. PPI is poorly understood by the wider population and efforts must be made to increase diversity in participation.

Patient and public involvement can improve study outcomes, but little data have been collected on why this might be. We investigated the impact of the Feasibility and Support to Timely Recruitment for Research (FAST-R) service, made up of trained patients and carers who review research documents at the beginning of the research pipeline.

To investigate the impact of the FAST-R service, and to provide researchers with guidelines to improve study documents.

A mixed-methods design assessing changes and suggestions in documents submitted to the FAST-R service from 2011 to 2020. Quantitative measures were readability, word count, jargon words before and after review, the effects over time and if changes were implemented. We also asked eight reviewers to blindly select a pre- or post-review participant information sheet as their preferred version. Reviewers’ comments were analysed qualitatively via thematic analysis.

After review, documents were longer and contained less jargon, but did not improve readability. Jargon and the number of suggested changes increased over time. Participant information sheets had the most suggested changes. Reviewers wanted clarity, better presentation and felt that documents lacked key information such as remuneration, risks involved and data management. Six out of eight reviewers preferred the post-review participant information sheet. FAST-R reviewers provided jargon words and phrases with alternatives for researchers to use.

Longer documents are acceptable if they are clear, with jargon explained or substituted. The highlighted barriers to true informed consent are not decreasing, although this study has suggestions for improving research document accessibility.

The purpose of this study was to assess the readability of information on the Internet posted about coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to determine how closely these materials are written to the recommended reading levels.

Using the search term “coronavirus,” information posted on the first 100 English language websites was identified. Using an online readability calculator, multiple readability tests were conducted to ensure a comprehensive representation would result.

The mean readability scores ranged between grade levels 6.2 and 17.8 (graduate school level). Four of the 5 measures (GFI, CLI, SMOG, FRE) found that readability exceeded the 10th grade reading level indicating that the text of these websites would be difficult for the average American to read. The mean reading level for nearly all noncommercial and commercial websites was at or above the 10th grade reading level.

Messages about COVID-19 must be readable at an “easy” level, and must contain clear guidelines for behavior. The degree to which individuals seek information in response to risk messages is positively related to the expectation that the information will resolve uncertainty. However, if the information is too complex to interpret and it fails to lead to disambiguation, this can contribute to feelings of panic.

Murmurs are abnormal audible heart sounds produced by turbulent blood flow. Therefore, murmurs in a child may be a source of anxiety for family members. Families often use online materials to explore possible reasons for these murmurs, given the accessibility of information on the Internet. In this study, we evaluated the quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online materials about heart murmur.

An Internet search was performed for “heart murmur” using the Google search engine. The global quality score (on a scale of 1 to 5, corresponding to poor to excellent quality) and Health on the Net code were used to measure the quality of information presented. The understandability of the web pages identified was measured using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (score range from 0 to 100%, scores below 70% reflect poor performance). The readability of each web pages was assessed using four validated indices: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, the Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. The ALEXA traffic tool was used to reference domains’ popularity and visibility.

We identified 230 English-language patient educational materials that discussed heart murmur. After exclusion, a total of 86 web pages were evaluated for this study. The average global quality score was 4.34 (SD = 0.71; range from 3 to 5) indicating that the quality of information of most websites was good. Only 14 (16.3%) websites had Health on the Net certification. The mean understandability score for all Internet-based patient educational materials was 74.6% (SD = 12.8%; range from 31.2 to 93.7%). A score suggesting these Internet-based patient educational materials were “easy to understand”. The mean readability levels of all patient educational materials were higher than the recommended sixth-grade reading level, according to all indices applied. This means that the level of readability is difficult. The average grade level for all web pages was 10.4 ± 1.65 (range from 7.53 to 14.13). The Flesch–Kincaid Grade level was 10 ± 1.81, the Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook level was 12.1 ± 1.85, and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook level was 9.1 ± 1.38. The average Flesch Reading Ease Score was 55 ± 9.1 (range from 32.4 to 72.9).

We demonstrated that web pages describing heart murmurs were understandable and high quality. However, the readability level of the websites was above the recommended sixth-grade reading level. Readability of written materials from online sources need to be improved. However, care must be taken to ensure that the information of web pages is of a high quality and understandable.

The final rule for the protection of human subjects requires that informed consent be “in language understandable to the subject” and mandates that “the informed consent must be organized in such a way that facilitates comprehension.” This study assessed the readability of Institutional Review Board-approved informed consent forms at our institution, implemented an intervention to improve the readability of consent forms, and measured the first year impact of the intervention.

Readability assessment was conducted on a sample of 217 Institutional Review Board-approved informed consents from 2013 to 2015. A plain language informed consent template was developed and implemented and readability was assessed again after 1 year.

The mean readability of the baseline sample was 10th grade. The mean readability of the post-intervention sample (n=82) was seventh grade.

Providing investigators with a plain language informed consent template and training can promote improved readability of informed consents for research.

Information is key to patient informed choice and the internet is currently a major source of health information for adults in the UK. In order for the users to make use of the information it must be presented in a way that the user can understand. This depends on a number of factors one being that the document is written at the right level to be understood by the reader, readability.

The aim of this study was to assess the readability of radiotherapy-related documents on the internet and compare their levels to published norms.

An internet search was undertaken using Google, to identify UK-based literature. Once identified documents were downloaded into Word and cleaned of punctuation other than that at the end of the sentence, documents were then analysed by the software package Readability Studio.

Documents tended to be written at too high a reading level, but the reading level had improved from a similar study conducted in 2006. The level of readability appears to show a relationship to the use of passive voice, which was very variable in the sample collected and reduction in the use of passive voice could help with the readability of the information.