Author:
Rughani Guy,Hanlon Peter,Corcoran Neave,Mair Frances S
Abstract
BackgroundGeneral practice websites are an increasingly important point of interaction, but their readability is largely unexplored. One in four adults struggle with basic literacy, and there is a socioeconomic gradient. Readable content is a prerequisite to promoting health literacy.AimTo assess general practice website readability by analysing text and design factors, and to assess whether practices adapted their website text to the likely literacy levels of their populations.Design and settingWebsites for all general practices across Scotland were analysed from March to December 2019, using a cross-sectional design.MethodText was extracted from five webpages per website and eight text readability factors were measured, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The relationship between readability and a practice population’s level of deprivation, measured using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), was assessed. Overall, 10 design factors contributing to readability and accessibility were scored.ResultsIn total, 86.4% (n = 813/941) of Scottish practices had a website; 22.9% (n = 874/3823) of webpages were written at, or below, the government-recommended reading level for online content (9–14 years old), and the content of the remaining websites, 77.1% (n = 2949/3823), was suitable for a higher reading age. Of all webpages, 80.5% (n = 3077/3823) were above the recommended level for easy-to-understand ‘plain English’. There was no statistically significant association between webpage reading age and SIMD. Only 6.7% (n = 51/764) of websites achieved all design and accessibility recommendations.ConclusionChanges to practice websites could improve readability and promote health literacy, but practices will need financial resources and ongoing technical support if this is to be achieved and maintained. Failure to provide readable and accessible websites may widen health inequalities; the topic will become increasingly important as online service use accelerates.
Publisher
Royal College of General Practitioners
Reference40 articles.
1. Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations
2. Scottish Government (2017) The 2018 General Medical Services Contract in Scotland, https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2017/11/2018-gms-contract-scotland/documents/00527530-pdf/00527530-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/00527530.pdf (accessed 25 Mar 2021).
3. Trethewey SP Beck KJ Symonds RF (2020) Video consultations in UK primary care in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X709505.
4. Royal College of General Practitioners (2020) General practice in the post covid world Challenges and opportunities for general practice, https://www.rcgp.org.uk/-/media/Files/News/2020/general-practice-post-covid-rcgp.ashx (accessed 25 Mar 2021).
5. NHS England (2018) NHS England Standard General Medical Services Contract 2017/18, https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/17-18-gms-contract.pdf (accessed 25 Mar 2021).
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献