Introduction: The Internet has become a wide spread source for disseminating health information to large numbers of people. Such is the case for spine surgery as well. Given the complexity of spinal surgeries, an important point to consider is whether or not these resources are easily read and understood by most Americans. The average national reading grade level has been estimated to be at about the 7th grade. The authors strive to assess the readability of open spine surgery resources and minimally invasive spine surgery resources to offer suggestions in order to help improve the readability of patient resources.

Methods: Online patient education resources were downloaded in March of 2013 from resources representing either traditional open back surgery or minimally invasive spine surgery. Each resource was assessed using ten scales from Readability Studio Professional Edition Version 2012.1 (Oleander Software, Ltd, Vandalia, Ohio).

Results: Patient education resources representing traditional open back surgery or minimally invasive spine surgery were all found to be written at a level well above the recommended 6th grade level. In general, minimally invasive spine surgery materials were written at a higher grade level.

Conclusions: The readability of patient education resources from spine surgery websites exceeds the average reading ability of an American adult. Revisions may be warranted to increase quality and patient comprehension of these resources to effectively reach a greater patient population.

Patient Care: This research will bring awareness to the fact that the healthcare oriented education resources patients seek are often written at a level that the average American cannot understand. This may be especially true for subspecialties involving a variety of advanced technology and intricate procedures as seen in the field of spine surgery.

Learning Objectives: By the conclusion of this session, participants should be able to: 1) Describe the importance of the ability for patients to understand healthcare oriented education materials, 2) Discuss, in small groups, the effect of patient education materials on clinical outcomes, 3) Identify an effective strategy to create patient education materials at a level that the average American can comprehend.

References: 1. Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. Oct 2008;53(10):1310-1315. 2. Vives M, Young L, Sabharwal S. Readability of spine-related patient education materials from subspecialty organization and spine practitioner websites. Spine. Dec 1 2009;34(25):2826-2831. 3. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. Report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. The Journal of family practice. Feb 1998;46(2):168-176. 4. National Institutes of Health. How to Write Easy to Read Health Materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed Jan 4, 2012. 5. Paasche-Orlow MK, Taylor HA, Brancati FL. Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. The New England journal of medicine. Feb 20 2003;348(8):721-726. 6. 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). In: Education USDo, ed. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics; 2006. 7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy. Vol 15. 2002/05/04 ed. Washington, D.C.2010:3. 8. Parker R, Kreps GL. Library outreach: overcoming health literacy challenges. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA. Oct 2005;93(4 Suppl):S81-85. 9. Ownby RL. Influence of vocabulary and sentence complexity and passive voice on the readability of consumer-oriented mental health information on the Internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005:585-589. 10. Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. May-Jun 1998;48(3):151-162. 11. Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. May-Jun 2002;52(3):134-149. 12. Murphy PW, Chesson AL, Walker L, Arnold CL, Chesson LM. Comparing the effectiveness of video and written material for improving knowledge among sleep disorders clinic patients with limited literacy skills. Southern medical journal. Mar 2000;93(3):297-304. 13. Davis TC, Holcombe RF, Berkel HJ, Pramanik S, Divers SG. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. May 6 1998;90(9):668-674. 14. Health literacy: report of the Council on Scientific Affairs. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA. Feb 10 1999;281(6):552-557.