The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing Readability of Patient Education Materials: Current Role in Orthopaedics
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Health literacy is the single best predictor of an individual's health status. It is important to customize health-related education material to the individual patient's level of reading skills. Readability of a given text is the objective measurement of the reading skills one should possess to understand the written material. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this article, some of the commonly used readability assessment tools are discussed and guidelines to improve the comprehension of patient education handouts are provided. Where are we now? Several healthcare organizations have recommended the readability of patient education materials be no higher than sixth- to eighth-grade level. However, most of the patient education materials currently available on major orthopaedic Web sites are written at a reading level that may be too advanced for comprehension by a substantial proportion of the population. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: There are several readily available and validated tools for assessing the readability of written materials. While use of audiovisual aids such as video clips, line drawings, models, and charts can enhance the comprehension of a health-related topic, standard readability tools cannot construe such enhancements. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Given the variability in the capacity to comprehend health-related materials among individuals seeking orthopaedic care, stratifying the contents of patient education materials at different levels of complexity will likely improve health literacy and enhance patient-centered communication.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion
Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, & Institute of Medicine (2004) · doi:10.17226/10883 · Cited by 3,444
Literacy and health outcomes: A systematic review of the literature
DeWalt, D. A., Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K. N., & Pignone, M. P. (2004) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2004.40153.x · Cited by 2,309
Parker, R. M., Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., & Nurss, J. R. (1995) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02640361 · Cited by 2,023
Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument.
Davis, T. C., Long, S. W., Jackson, R. H., Mayeaux, E. J., George, R. B., Murphy, P. W., & Crouch, M. A. (1993) · PubMed · Cited by 1,597
Development of a brief test to measure functional health literacy
Baker, D. W., Williams, M. V., Parker, R. M., Gazmararian, J. A., & Nurss, J. (1999) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/s0738-3991(98)00116-5 · Cited by 1,544
Teaching patients with low literacy skills
(2001) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e518822004-001 · Cited by 1,229
Health Information on the Internet: Accessibility, Quality, and Readability in English and Spanish
Berland, G. K., Elliott, M. N., Morales, L. S., Algazy, J. I., Kravitz, R. L., Broder, M. S., Kanouse, D. E., Muñoz, J. A., Puyol, J.-A., Lara, M., et al. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.20.2612 · Cited by 1,208
Adult literacy in America : a first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey
Kirsch, I. S., & Improvement (1993) · Cited by 814
The Principles of Readability.
DuBay, W. H. (2004) · Cited by 778
The relationship of patient reading ability to self-reported health and use of health services.
Baker, D. W., Parker, R. M., Williams, M. V., Clark, W. S., & Nurss, J. (1997) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.87.6.1027 · Cited by 720
Cited by
Patient Education and Health Literacy
Wittink, H., & Oosterhaven, J. (2018) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2018.06.004 · Cited by 267
Can Artificial Intelligence Improve the Readability of Patient Education Materials?
Kirchner, G. J., Kim, R. Y., Weddle, J. B., & Bible, J. E. (2023) · Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research · doi:10.1097/corr.0000000000002668 · Cited by 208
Hewitt, S., Sephton, R., & Yeowell, G. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15617 · Cited by 116
Leonard Grabeel, K., Russomanno, J., Oelschlegel, S., Tester, E., & Heidel, R. E. (2018) · Journal of the Medical Library Association · doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.262 · Cited by 96
Is time up for the Flesch measure of reading ease?
Hartley, J. (2016) · Scientometrics · doi:10.1007/s11192-016-1920-7 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Badarudeen, S., & Sabharwal, S.
- Venue
- Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research
- Published
- 2010-10
- Volume
- 468
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2572-2580
- ISSN
- 0009-921X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064058875
- Cited by
- 657
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 19.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing Readability of Patient Education Materials: Current Role in Orthopaedics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y
- The paper
- Badarudeen, S., & Sabharwal, S. (2010). Assessing Readability of Patient Education Materials: Current Role in Orthopaedics. Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
