Evaluating the readability of recruitment materials in veterinary clinical research

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundOwner comprehension is vital to recruitment and study success, but limited information exists regarding the readability of public‐facing veterinary clinical trial descriptions.ObjectivesThe current study sought to evaluate the readability of public‐facing online veterinary clinical trial descriptions from academic institutions and private referral practices.AnimalsNone.MethodsThis prospective study assessed readability in a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial study descriptions using 3 common methods: the Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (F‐K), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and online Automatic Readability Checker (ARC). Results were compared across specialties and between academic and private institutions.ResultsGrade level and readability consensus scores (RCSs) were obtained for 61 online clinical trial descriptions at universities (n = 49) and private practices (n = 12). Average grade‐level RCS for study descriptions was 14.13 (range, 9‐21). Using Microsoft Word, the FRES score was higher in descriptions from universities compared to private practices (P = .03), and F‐K scores were lower in university compared to private practice descriptions (P = .03). FRES (P = .07), F‐K (P = .12), and readability consensus (P = .17) scores obtained from ARC were not different between institution types. Forty‐eight studies (79%) had RCSs over 12, equivalent to reading material at college or graduate school levels.Conclusions and Clinical ImportanceSimilar to other areas in veterinary communication, the evaluated veterinary clinical trial descriptions used for advertising and recruitment far exceeded the recommended 6th‐grade reading level for medical information. Readability assessments are straightforward to conduct, and ensuring health literacy should be a customary best practice in veterinary medicine and clinical research.