J Curr Surg
Journal of Current Surgery, ISSN 1927-1298 print, 1927-1301 online, Open Access
Article copyright, the authors; Journal compilation copyright, J Curr Surg and Elmer Press Inc
Journal website http://www.currentsurgery.org

Original Article

Volume 10, Number 1-2, April 2020, pages 1-6

Health Literacy Gaps in Online Resources for Cirrhotic Patients

Trisha Kaundinyaa, Nikhilesh Mazumdera, b, Kofi Atiemoa, c, Ari Spellmana, d, Amna Dauda, Laura Marie Curtise, Daniela Patricia Ladnera, f, g

aNorthwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
bDivision of Gastroenterology, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
cDivision of Transplant, Department of Surgery, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, USA
dUniversity of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
eHealth Literacy and Learning Program (HeLP), Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
fDivision of Transplantation, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
gCorresponding Author: Daniela P. Ladner, Northwestern University Transplant Outcomes Research Collaborative (NUTORC), Comprehensive Transplant Center, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 676 North St. Clair Street, Suite 1900, Chicago, IL 60611, USA

Manuscript submitted February 14, 2020, accepted April 10, 2020
Short title: Literacy of Cirrhosis Patient Education
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jcs401


Background: The average readability level in the USA is a sixth grade level and for patients with chronic disease it is lower. Cirrhosis is a prevalent chronic disease that requires complex knowledge and instructions to manage. No research has been done about the understandability of online educational content for cirrhotic patients. Patients can find online materials curated by both general health platforms and high-volume liver transplant centers, and thus these materials were analyzed.

Methods: After determining exclusion criteria, the websites of the top 20 general health platform results and the websites of the top 20 high-volume hepatology centers were analyzed. Readability was assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (Audiovisual Materials) (PEMAT-A/V), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level tests, word counts, sentence counts, words per sentence, and time for an average sixth grader to read.

Results: The mean grade level readabilities were 12.3 and 11.3 for the general resources and the transplant center resources, respectively. The online resources ranged from 9 to 389 sentences requiring an average of 9.8 min to read. The mean PEMAT-A/V scores were 70.05% for the general resources and 72.45% for the transplant center resources. There was a statistically significant difference in the Flesch-Kincaid grade level, sentence number, words per sentence, word count, and time for an average sixth grader to read the general resources and transplant center resources (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: The online resources both from health platforms and hepatology centers available to patients with cirrhosis are too long and complex and underscore the need for simpler and shorter resources.

Keywords: Patient education; Cirrhosis; Media and social media; Quality of life


An estimated five million people suffer from liver cirrhosis, a chronic disease that requires extensive health care resources and intricate understanding to obtain and follow optimal treatment, such as regular care through gastroenterologists, liver cancer screening through ultrasounds, and endoscopies to assess portal hypertension [1]. However, disease understanding in this population is generally lacking. In Denmark, cirrhotic patients were found to have low levels of understanding about their conditions [2]. Another study in Melbourne identified that hepatitis B patients had significant gaps in their knowledge of the disease, transmission routes, and treatment [3]. In a US query of patients with liver cirrhosis, 15% listed that their most important disease-related need is accessible and understandable educational material [4].

Patient education materials can promote understanding [5]. Most patients of all socioeconomic and age strata seek information about their disease online, either through general internet resources or attached to large medical centers [6]. But online resources often tower above patients’ reading levels, which average at sixth grade [7]. Educational material can also be filled with medical jargon [8]. One US study reported that online reading materials on hepatitis B, hepatitis C, hepatocellular carcinoma, and cirrhosis had a mean reading level over 10th grade [9]. Similar challenges in patient reading materials have been described for kidney transplantation and other chronic conditions such as diabetes [10, 11].

Little is known about the comprehensibility of the highest visibility online resources on liver cirrhosis. Over 95% of traffic from an online search comes from the first page of results, so the first few web links have the greatest chance of being read by patients [12]. In this study, we therefore aimed to assess the understandability of the top patient education materials about liver cirrhosis available online through general search terms as well as the websites of large hepatology centers.

Materials and Methods▴Top 

This research did not require human subjects, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) review was not required. Two online searches were performed. One online search for “liver cirrhosis” was performed using the “Google” search engine (“Google”). The second search targeted the highest volume liver transplant centers (“hepatology centers”). For the “Google” search, the websites of medical centers, news articles, magazine articles, and videos were excluded as medical center websites were analyzed in the second search, and patients would have to listen to videos or download issues of magazines to get information (they were not quick readable sources). The results from the remaining top 20 websites were analyzed. For the “hepatology centers” search, the highest volume liver transplant centers were determined through the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). The top 20 centers with websites on liver cirrhosis were analyzed. For both searches, the grade level, word count, number of sentences, and number of words per sentence were calculated. Grade level readability was determined using the Flesch-Kincaid grade level analyzer, which takes into account word length and sentence length. Averages and standard deviations were calculated. The time needed to read each passage was calculated based on an average sixth grade reading speed of 140 words/min as in Hasbrouck and Tindal’s norms [13]. In addition to a grade level metric of readability, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (Audiovisual Materials) (PEMAT-A/V) test on understandability was used by two raters to evaluate all 40 samples. This test included subsections on “Content”, “Word Choice and Style”, “Organization”, “Layout and Design”, and “Visual Aids” [14]. The search was performed on February 1, 2019. A two-tailed paired t-test for means was used with α = 0.05 level of significance to compare the metrics of Flesch-Kincaid grade level, sentence number, words per sentence, word count, time for an average sixth grader to read, and PEMAT-A/V score for the “Google” search and “hepatology centers” search.



After exclusion of search results from medical centers (12) (see second analysis), videos (1), and newspaper and magazine articles (4), the top 20 search results were analyzed. The mean grade level readability was 12.3 (6.8 - 20.8), the mean word count was 1,841 (200 - 7,767), the mean number of sentences was 105 (9 - 389), and the mean number of words per sentence was 19.6 (10.6 - 29.4) (Table 1). Sixteen (80%) websites’ resources had subsections on etiology, symptoms, and treatments, which were included in the analysis, while four (20%) websites had no information on these subsections. The Medline Plus web resource had the lowest reading grade level at 6.8, with the lowest words per sentence (10.6) and fifth lowest PEMAT score (61). The most complicated web resource was the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) with a readability at 20.8 grade and a PEMAT score of 64, which was the second lowest score. The average time for a sixth grader to read these web resources was 13.15 min (1.4 - 21.9). The average PEMAT score for this sample was 70.05 (50 - 93).

Table 1.
Click to view
Table 1. Readability and Understandability of Top “Google” Searches

Hepatology centers

To find information on 20 websites of high-volume hepatology centers, 35 were queried. Of the 20 centers with online information on cirrhosis, five were in the Northeastern USA, four on the West Coast, six in the Midwest, and five in the South; 19 out of 20 (95%) were academic institutions. The 20 centers performed an annual average of 122.9 (93 - 170) liver transplants from 2017 to 2018. Among the 20 online texts, the mean grade level readability was 11.3 (6.7 - 17.2), the mean word count was 904 (276 - 2,677), the mean number of sentences was 64.15 (12 - 194), and the mean number of words per sentence was 18 (11 - 32) (Table 2). Subsections related to etiology, symptoms, and treatments were found on 18 (90%) websites. University of Wisconsin’s patient materials had the lowest reading grade level at 6.7, and Georgetown Medical Hospital’s patient materials had the highest reading level at 17.2. However, Georgetown’s materials had a higher PEMAT score (80) than University of Wisconsin (64). Ohio State University’s patient materials had the lowest number of words (175) and would take a sixth grade reader the shortest number of minutes to read (1.3), while the readability was at a 10.3 grade level and the PEMAT score was 73. The average time for a sixth grader to read these passages was 6.5 min (1.3 - 19.1). The average PEMAT score for this sample was 72.45% (40-90%).

Table 2.
Click to view
Table 2. Readability and Understandability of Top “Hepatology Centers” Searches

Comparison between centers

The readability of the top 20 sources found through both a general web search and a high-volume hepatology center search was over an 11th grade level, with transplant centers providing materials an average of one grade lower than general resources (11.3 vs. 12.3, respectively). In addition to Flesch-Kincaid grade level, the average number of sentences, words per sentence, word count, and time for an average sixth grader were higher for the general resources than the transplant center resources (105 vs. 64.15, 19.63 vs. 18.02, 1,841 vs. 904, 13.15 vs. 6.46, respectively). A two-tailed paired t-test for means showed a statistically significant difference in the average Flesch-Kincaid grade level, sentence number, words per sentence, word count, and time for an average sixth grader to read the general resources and transplant center resources (P < 0.05) (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.
Click for large image
Figure 1. Comparison between “Google” search and “Hepatology Centers” search. Comparison of mean (± SD) scores between “Google” search results and results from “Hepatology Centers” online searches. *P < 0.05. PEMAT-A/V: Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (Audiovisual Materials); SD: standard deviation.

The web sources readily available to patients with liver cirrhosis required an average reading level over 11th grade and the ability for a sixth grader to focus for more than 9.8 min. In the USA the average adult reading proficiency is at eighth grade, but over 20% of patients read below a fifth grade level [7, 15]. Hence, the reading level required to read about cirrhosis far exceeds the national average reading level and far more exceeds the reading level of chronically ill patients. In a study of asthma patients, over 40% read at or below a sixth grade level despite being high school graduates [16].

In addition to high reading grade levels, the average PEMAT understandability score was 71.25, with transplant centers providing slightly more understandable materials than general web resources (72.45 vs. 70.05, respectively) (Fig. 1). Only four websites had a score above 90 in understandability and one was as low as 40. A patient with liver cirrhosis will likely struggle to comprehend any significant amount of online information provided when it is, on average, 70% understandable. While there is not an average educational website score to reference for the PEMAT, trends were observed that lowered scores of the analyzed web results. More than half of websites in both searches did not receive points in the PEMAT subsections titled “Word Choice and Style” and “Layout and Design”, because they used passive voice and did not use a readable text size. Both of these factors have been independently linked to the capacity to remember words and comprehend text [17, 18]. Over 75% of all websites did not use any images, which have been shown to facilitate recall of main ideas of text [19]. Websites with lower grade level readabilities did not have greater understandability scores than websites with higher grade level readabilities, which has also been observed in an analysis of diabetes-related education materials [20].

As of 2019, the duration of an average web user’s Google search session was under 9 min [21]. While some cirrhosis websites might take under 9 min to read, they are unlikely to be understood because cirrhotic patients are not average web users. Many suffer from hepatic encephalopathy, which causes neurocognitive impairment, issues with executive function, slower problem solving, and attention deficits. Hence, they need more time to read long passages on websites with small fonts and few images [22]. They also have a decreased ability to sustain focus while reading which limits their capacity and motivation to learn about cirrhosis [23].

Improving the readability and comprehensibility of patient education materials has proven to be successful at improving patient understanding in other contexts [24, 25]. Cirrhotic patients face fatigue, a lower quality of life, and helplessness and could potentially gain a better sense of control by understanding their disease [26]. Lower levels of disease understanding in cirrhotic patients have shown to negatively influence self-management behaviors, while well-informed cirrhotic patients are more likely to be adherent to their complex and exhausting treatment regimens, which leads to greater well-being and less fatigue [27-30].

This study was limited to reading resources and excluded other sources such as locally available paper pamphlets provided by centers or videos. The analyses were performed using the Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level tool to measure readability and PEMAT to measure understandability. There are other tools (e.g. Gunning Fog Index, SMOG score) available, but cursory application did not change the reported results.

Educational material is too long and complex for the target population. Involving patients with cirrhosis in creating appropriate educational material that is available online through simple searches might significantly improve understanding of this chronic disease and may increase guideline adherence and satisfaction [31].


Our findings corroborate the claim of liver cirrhosis patients in a national online query indicating that information about the disease is elusive, as most general websites and especially those from hepatology centers are too high in grade level readability, very long (13 min for the Google search and 6.5 min for hepatology centers) and low in understandability (70.05% for the Google search and 72.45% for the hepatology centers) (Fig. 1) [4]. No websites contained information that was a sixth grade level and had a 90% PEMAT score. This obvious educational resource gap can easily be mitigated through targeted information made available and is likely to positively affect treatment adherence of patients with liver cirrhosis [32].


None to declare.

Financial Disclosure

PCORI-Tier 3: National patient community, caregiver and advocacy group directed strategies to lead comparative effectiveness research for liver cirrhosis (PI: Daniela P. Ladner).

Conflict of Interest

None to declare.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Author Contributions

TK contributed to data analysis/interpretation, drafting article, critical revision of article, statistics analysis; NM, KA and LMC contributed to the critical revision of article; AS contributed to data analysis/interpretation; AD contributed to data analysis/interpretation, and critical revision of article; DPL contributed to concept/design, and critical revision of article. All authors approved the article.

Data Availability

The authors declare that data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article.

  1. Traussnigg S, Kienbacher C, Halilbasic E, Rechling C, Kazemi-Shirazi L, Hofer H, Munda P, et al. Challenges and management of liver cirrhosis: practical issues in the therapy of patients with cirrhosis due to NAFLD and NASH. Dig Dis. 2015;33(4):598-607.
    doi pubmed
  2. Freundlich Grydgaard M, Bager P. Health literacy levels in outpatients with liver cirrhosis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2018;53(12):1584-1589.
    doi pubmed
  3. Dahl TF, Cowie BC, Biggs BA, Leder K, MacLachlan JH, Marshall C. Health literacy in patients with chronic hepatitis B attending a tertiary hospital in Melbourne: a questionnaire based survey. BMC Infect Dis. 2014;14:537.
    doi pubmed
  4. Ladner DP. P2P liver cirrhosis study. PCOR Net. 2018.
  5. DeMarco J, Nystrom M, Salvatore K. The importance of patient education throughout the continuum of health care. Journal of Consumer Health on the Internet. 2011;15(1):22-31.
  6. Bergeron B. Online patient-education options. MedGenMed. 2004;6(2):54.
  7. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract. 1990;31(5):533-538.
  8. Hansberry DR, Agarwal N, John ES, John AM, Agarwal P, Reynolds JC, Baker SR. Evaluation of internet-based patient education materials from internal medicine subspecialty organizations: will patients understand them? Intern Emerg Med. 2017;12(4):535-543.
    doi pubmed
  9. Gulati R, Nawaz M, Pyrsopoulos NT. Comparative analysis of online patient education material pertaining to hepatitis and its complications. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;28(5):558-566.
    doi pubmed
  10. Boulos MN. British internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable? Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7(3):528-535.
    doi pubmed
  11. Zhou EP, Kiwanuka E, Morrissey PE. Online patient resources for deceased donor and live donor kidney recipients: a comparative analysis of readability. Clin Kidney J. 2018;11(4):559-563.
    doi pubmed
  12. Kaye L. 95 percent of web traffic goes to sites. Google SERPs [study]. 2014:1
  13. Hasbrouck J, Tindal G. Oral reading fluency norms: a valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. Reading Teacher - READ TEACH. 2006;59:636-644.
  14. Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;96(3):395-403.
    doi pubmed
  15. Morony S, Flynn M, McCaffery KJ, Jansen J, Webster AC. Readability of Written Materials for CKD Patients: A Systematic Review. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015;65(6):842-850.
    doi pubmed
  16. Williams MV, Baker DW, Honig EG, Lee TM, Nowlan A. Inadequate literacy is a barrier to asthma knowledge and self-care. Chest. 1998;114(4):1008-1015.
    doi pubmed
  17. Halamish V, Nachman H, Katzir T. The Effect of Font Size on Children's Memory and Metamemory. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1577.
    doi pubmed
  18. Shapiro J. An investigation into the effect of active and passive voice on the comprehension of seventh grade good and poor readers. New York: Education, State University College at Brockport. 1982.
  19. Haring MJ, Fry MA. Effect of pictures on children's comprehension of written text. ECTJ. 1979;27(3):185-190.
  20. Lipari M, Berlie H, Saleh Y, Hang P, Moser L. Understandability, actionability, and readability of online patient education materials about diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2019;76(3):182-186.
    doi pubmed
  21. Facebook SL. Google lose share of time spent on-site as bing sees increase. 2019. https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/336323/facebook-google-lose-share-of-time-spent-on-site.html.
  22. Bajaj JS, Wade JB, Sanyal AJ. Spectrum of neurocognitive impairment in cirrhosis: Implications for the assessment of hepatic encephalopathy. Hepatology. 2009;50(6):2014-2021.
    doi pubmed
  23. Liu CF, Kuo KM. Does information overload prevent chronic patients from reading self-management educational materials? Int J Med Inform. 2016;89:1-8.
    doi pubmed
  24. Baker GC, Newton DE, Bergstresser PR. Increased readability improves the comprehension of written information for patients with skin disease. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1988;19(6):1135-1141.
  25. Overland JE, Hoskins PL, McGill MJ, Yue DK. Low literacy: a problem in diabetes education. Diabet Med. 1993;10(9):847-850.
    doi pubmed
  26. Loria A, Escheik C, Gerber NL, Younossi ZM. Quality of life in cirrhosis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013;15(1):301.
    doi pubmed
  27. Mackey LM, Doody C, Werner EL, Fullen B. Self-management skills in chronic disease management: what role does health literacy have? Med Decis Making. 2016;36(6):741-759.
    doi pubmed
  28. Serper M, Patzer RE, Reese PP, Przytula K, Koval R, Ladner DP, Levitsky J, et al. Medication misuse, nonadherence, and clinical outcomes among liver transplant recipients. Liver Transpl. 2015;21(1):22-28.
    doi pubmed
  29. Miller TA. Health literacy and adherence to medical treatment in chronic and acute illness: A meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1079-1086.
    doi pubmed
  30. Hayward KL, Valery PC, Martin JH, Karmakar A, Patel PJ, Horsfall LU, Tallis CJ, et al. Medication beliefs predict medication adherence in ambulatory patients with decompensated cirrhosis. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(40):7321-7331.
    doi pubmed
  31. Allison R, Evans PH, Kilbride C, Campbell JL. Secondary prevention of stroke: using the experiences of patients and carers to inform the development of an educational resource. Fam Pract. 2008;25(5):355-361.
    doi pubmed
  32. Polis S, Zang L, Mainali B, Pons R, Pavendranathan G, Zekry A, Fernandez R. Factors associated with medication adherence in patients living with cirrhosis. J Clin Nurs. 2016;25(1-2):204-212.
    doi pubmed

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Journal of Current Surgery is published by Elmer Press Inc.


Browse  Journals  


Journal of Clinical Medicine Research

Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism

Journal of Clinical Gynecology and Obstetrics

World Journal of Oncology

Gastroenterology Research

Journal of Hematology

Journal of Medical Cases

Journal of Current Surgery

Clinical Infection and Immunity

Cardiology Research

World Journal of Nephrology and Urology

Cellular and Molecular Medicine Research

Journal of Neurology Research

International Journal of Clinical Pediatrics






Journal of Current Surgery, quarterly, ISSN 1927-1298 (print), 1927-1301 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc.                     
The content of this site is intended for health care professionals.
This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted
non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Creative Commons Attribution license (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International CC-BY-NC 4.0)

This journal follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals,
the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

website: www.currentsurgery.org   editorial contact: editor@currentsurgery.org
Address: 9225 Leslie Street, Suite 201, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3H6, Canada

© Elmer Press Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the published articles are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the editors and Elmer Press Inc. This website is provided for medical research and informational purposes only and does not constitute any medical advice or professional services. The information provided in this journal should not be used for diagnosis and treatment, those seeking medical advice should always consult with a licensed physician.