Web resources for colorectal cancer screening suboptimal

Online patient-educational resources about colorectal cancer screenings are written above the average consumer reading level and fail to adequately address consumer obstacles and ultimate benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

“Today, the Internet often is the first point of contact between the patient and health-related information, even for patients with low literacy,” Deepak Agrawal, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, said in a press release. “Thus, it is a great opportunity for us to influence the decisions people make about their health and to steer them in the right direction. Informing patients is a physician’s responsibility and we take this role seriously.”

To assess the readability and health content of online education materials regarding colon cancer screening, Deepak and colleagues evaluated 12 prestigious and popular online patient education resources.

The Flesch-Kincaid Reading grade level was used to evaluate the reading level of the content. The appropriateness and clarity of the material was determined through the Suitability Assessment of Materials scale, which takes into account factors such as text content, graphics, layout/typography and learning incentive.

Content regarding health was assessed using the Health Belief Model, which considers patient perception of disease risks and severity, as well as their perceived barriers or incentives to opting for screening and treatment. Three reviewers independently scored each online education source.

The main outcome measurements were Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level score, Suitability of Assessment Materials score and health content score.

The researchers found that 10 of the 12 materials had content written above the maximum suggested sixth-grade reading level, and five were 10th-grade level or higher. One source of material was assigned a superior suitability score while three were given inadequate scores.

Additionally, health content analysis found that only 50% of the materials addressed colorectal cancer risk in the general public, and fewer than 25% outlined the demographics considered at high risk, including blacks, smokers, diabetics and obese patients.

In terms of perceived obstacles to colorectal cancer screening, only 8.3% of the reviewed materials addressed embarrassment while 25% addressed pain associated with colonoscopy, 25% addressed cost of colonoscopy, and none of the resources discussed the need for colonoscopy even in the absence of symptoms. None of the resources cited any social benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

According to researchers, these findings are particularly significant because for six of 10 individuals, the Internet is the sole source of information on colorectal cancer screenings.

“It is important to add that reading information on a website should not be considered a substitute for consulting a physician,” Agrawal said. “Internet information is best used as a supplement. With colon cancer screening, there are many options, and each has its risks and benefits. An actual discussion with a physician would help patients choose the best option.”

Disclosure: The researchers report no relevant financial disclosures.