Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2025

E-Patient Counseling Trial E-PACO: Computer Based Education versus Nurse Counseling for Patients to Prepare for Colonoscopy
Published on: August 1, 2019
Readability Assessment of Patient Education Materials on Uro-oncological Diseases Using Automated Measures
Severin Rodler1, Serena Maruccia2, Andre Abreu3
1USC Institute of Urology and Catherine and Joseph Aresty Department of Urology, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Artificial Intelligence Center at USC Urology, USC Institute of Urology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA; Department of Urology, University Hospital of LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Background And Objective:
Readability of patient education materials is of utmost importance to ensure understandability and dissemination of health care information in uro-oncology. We aimed to investigate the readability of the official patient education materials of the European Association of Urology (EAU) and American Urology Association (AUA).
Methods:
Patient education materials for prostate, bladder, kidney, testicular, penile, and urethral cancers were retrieved from the respective organizations. Readability was assessed via the WebFX online tool for Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) and for reading grade levels by Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GFS), Smog Index (SI), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI). Layperson readability was defined as a FRES of ≥70 and with the other readability indexes <7 according to European Union recommendations. This study assessed only objective readability and no other metrics such as understandability.
Key Findings And Limitations:
Most patient education materials failed to meet the recommended threshold for laypersons. The mean readability for EAU patient education material was as follows: FRES 50.9 (standard error [SE]: 3.0), and FKGL, GFS, SI, CLI, and ARI all with scores ≥7. The mean readability for AUA patient material was as follows: FRES 64.0 (SE: 1.4), with all of FKGL, GFS, SI, and ARI scoring ≥7 readability. Only 13 out of 70 (18.6%) patient education materials' paragraphs met the readability requirements. The mean readability for bladder cancer patient education materials was the lowest, with a FRES of 36.7 (SE: 4.1).
Conclusions And Clinical Implications:
Patient education materials from leading urological associations reveal readability levels beyond the recommended thresholds for laypersons and may not be understood easily by patients. There is a future need for more patient-friendly reading materials.
Patient Summary:
This study checked whether health information about different cancers was easy to read. Most of it was too hard for patients to understand.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Health Literacy
Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching I: Assessment and Diagnosis
It is critical to determine the patient's learning needs during the assessment. Determination of learning needs compounds data...
Cancer Survival Analysis
Nursing Process for Patient and Caregiver Teaching III: Evaluation and Documentation
Nurses can use several methods to evaluate patient outcomes. For example, oral questions can assess cognitive learning,...

