(PI-009) Healing the Wound Gap: Evaluating the Literacy Burden of Online Postoperative Care Instructions

Kylie McMath, MSN, APRN, FNP-C, CWOCN, RNFA – Plastic Surgery – Loma Linda University

Introduction: The accessibility and readability of online health information have profound implications for patient comprehension and subsequent adherence to postoperative care instructions. This study aimed to assess the literacy level of online instructions for wound care following common surgical procedures.

Methods: Using a systematic approach, we sampled a cross-section of online resources from both medical institutions and patient forums. We employed the Flesch-Kincaid readability tests to assess the grade level of the text, a widely validated approach for understanding textual difficulty.

Results: Our analysis revealed a concerning disparity. The majority of online wound care instructions were written at a high-school grade 11 reading level, significantly above the recommended grade 8 level for patient education materials suggested by the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health. This readability level poses a potential barrier to the average American adult who reads at a grade 8 level, exacerbating health literacy disparities.

Discussion: Our findings underscore the pressing need to address the literacy burden in online health materials. Lowering the reading level of these instructions could enhance patient understanding, adherence, and ultimately improve postoperative outcomes. Further research is necessary to create and test patient-friendly wound care instructions and to assess the impact of improved readability on postoperative care adherence and outcomes. We conclude that medical institutions must prioritize the simplification and standardization of postoperative instructions to bridge this 'wound gap'.

Trademarked Items:

References: [1] Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. NCES 2006-483. National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.
[2] Weiss BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. American Medical Association Foundation and American Medical Association; 2003.
[3] Stossel LM, Segar N, Gliatto P, Fallar R, Karani R. Readability of patient education materials available at the point of care. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(9):1165-1170.
[4] Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol. 1948;32(3):221-233.
[5] Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training Command; 1975.
[6] National Institutes of Health. How to write easy-to-read health materials. MedlinePlus. Accessed January 2023. Available at: www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html.