The Readability, Understandability, and Suitability of Online Resources for Ostomy Care.

PURPOSE the purpose of this study was to evaluate the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online resources for patient specific ostomy care. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study SUBJECT AND SETTING Online websites for ostomy care designed for patients. METHODS Ostomy care websites designed for patients were identified by querying three online search engines. Content areas were established following assessment of all websites by two reviewers. Readability of each website was determined using the Flesch Reading Ease Test and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index. Understandability was measured using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT), and suitability was determined using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Chi-Square and rank sum tests were used to compare these measures across website type and by number of content areas. RESULTS Twenty-three websites met inclusion criteria; 26.1% were for-profit, 13% were government, 26.1% were academic, and 34.8% were non-profit. Nineteen content areas were identified including themes related to pouching, bathing, physical activity, managing output, lifestyle, mental health, and eating. The median number of content areas covered was 8.5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4-13]. The most common content areas were changing/emptying a pouching system (82.6% of websites), preventing/managing peristomal skin irritation (78.3%), eating (60.9%), and odor management (60.9%). Less than 27% of websites had content on irrigation, blockage/constipation, and body image. Readability scores using the Flesch Reading Ease (mean 58, IQR 54.7-69.5) and SMOG Index (mean 9.1, IQR 7.6-9.9) correlated to a high-school or “fairly difficult” reading level. The mean PEMAT measuring understandability was 80 (IQR 78.9-84.0). The mean SAM score checking for suitability (literacy demand, graphics, layout and type, learning stimulation and motivation and cultural appropriateness) was 55% (IQR 48.4%-61.3%), indicating “adequate material.” A greater number of content areas on the websites were associated with worse readability (SMOG and Flesch Reading Ease scores) than websites presenting fewer content areas (P = .001 & P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS We found significant variability in the content, readability, understandability, and suitability of online materials for ostomy care. Websites with more content areas were associated with worse readability.