Quality of Digital Patient Education on Interventional Venous Diseases and Interventions

BackgroundDigital educational resources have transformed patient care as a powerful tool for clinicians to assist patients in their medical decision-making. However, a significant degree of online educational materials is unstandardized in terms of the quality, readability, and transparency of the information provided to patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, quality, and readability of publicly available digital patient education materials addressing patient questions on venous diseases and image-guided interventions.Materials and MethodsA cross-sectional study addressed the objective of this study by utilizing Rothwell's Classification of Questions, readability scores, and Brief DISCERN.ResultsThe digital educational materials extracted from the methodology of this study were mostly found to be from "Academic Institutions" at 41.3%. (n = 186) and "Medical Practices" at 30.2% (n = 136). Readability scores indicate that most articles on venous diseases or procedures are considered either "fairly difficult" or "difficult" to read. According to the Brief DISCERN assessment, educational materials on venous disease topics generally received higher quality scores compared to those on venous interventions.ConclusionsThe findings revealed a potential discrepancy in the quality of patient education articles between those related to venous diseases and those related to venous interventions. Articles about venous diseases generally scored higher in quality according to the Brief DISCERN assessment. This may suggest that a more substantial amount of high-quality information is available in this area. In terms of readability, these educational articles generally fell short of recommended grade reading levels.