Quality and Readability of Accessible Facial Feminization Literature: Where Can We Improve?

Facial feminization surgery (FFS) consists of multiple, complex procedures. Well-informed patients have been shown to have better outcomes and expectations. However, there is limited data evaluating FFS patient-oriented material online. This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of FFS...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of plastic surgery 2023-06, Vol.90 (6), p.533-537
Hauptverfasser: Alper, David P., Almeida, Mariana N., De Baun, Heloise M., Glahn, Joshua Z., Rivera, Jean Carlo, Williams, Mica C.G., Collar, John L., Mookerjee, Vikram, Persing, John A., Alperovich, Michael
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Facial feminization surgery (FFS) consists of multiple, complex procedures. Well-informed patients have been shown to have better outcomes and expectations. However, there is limited data evaluating FFS patient-oriented material online. This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of FFS literature online. Facial feminization surgery-related terms were queried in Google with location, cookies, and user account information disabled. Websites were analyzed for readability using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, suitability using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM), and quality using the DISCERN scale. Unpaired t tests and χ2 tests were used to compare the websites of community-based and academic or public institutions. One hundred twenty websites met inclusion criteria (71 community-based and 49 academic). The average reading grade level was 11.68 ± 1.71. The average SAM score was 53.11 ± 11.75, denoting adequate readability. Only 16.67% of websites contained visual aids to assist in explaining procedures and benefits. Overall, 68.33% of websites' DISCERN score was rated very poor or poor, whereas only 8.33% were rated as good. The following DISCERN elements had the lowest scores across all graded websites: "clear source and date of information," "details of additional source of support," "refers to areas of uncertainty," and "describes risks of each treatment." Websites published by community-based institutions were significantly better in describing how FFS works and the benefits of each procedure. Academic sites overall were less biased (4.84 vs 4.62, P = 0.03) and provided additional sources of support (2.35 vs 1.32, P =
ISSN:0148-7043
1536-3708
DOI:10.1097/SAP.0000000000003569