Mammography result notification letters: Are they easy to read and understand?

Erin N Marcus, Lee M. Sanders, Margaret Pereyra, Yanisa Del Toro, Ada Pat Romilly, Monica Yepes, Monica W Hooper, Beth A. Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Federal law mandates that mammography centers notify women of their result in writing. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability and ease of use of the sample letters provided as a template for the notification letters centers send to patients. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the 43 mammography result notification template letters available from the American College of Radiology and two leading transcription software services. To assess readability, we used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and the Lexile framework. To assess document suitability, we used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Acceptable scores were based on established standards: ≤6th grade for the Flesch-Kincaid level, ≤900 for the Lexile analysis, and ≥40% on the SAM scale. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and ranges were calculated by diagnostic category, as indicated by BI-RADS level. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in readability and suitability by diagnostic category. Results: The Flesch Kincaid score ranged from 7.7 to 13.5, with a mean of 10.2. The Lexile score ranged from 880 to 1270, with a mean of 1113. The mean SAM score ranged from 16% to 36%, with a mean of 29%. Mean grade level, Lexile score, and SAM score did not vary significantly by diagnostic category. No single document had an acceptable suitability score, and only two had acceptable Lexile scores. Common deficiencies included use of the passive voice, vague wording, and technical jargon. Conclusions: The letters we analyzed were written at levels too difficult for many patients to understand. Future investigations should explore clearer ways of communicating mammography results.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)545-551
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Women's Health
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

Mammography
Radiology
Software
Cross-Sectional Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Mammography result notification letters : Are they easy to read and understand? / Marcus, Erin N; Sanders, Lee M.; Pereyra, Margaret; Del Toro, Yanisa; Romilly, Ada Pat; Yepes, Monica; Hooper, Monica W; Jones, Beth A.

In: Journal of Women's Health, Vol. 20, No. 4, 01.04.2011, p. 545-551.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Marcus, EN, Sanders, LM, Pereyra, M, Del Toro, Y, Romilly, AP, Yepes, M, Hooper, MW & Jones, BA 2011, 'Mammography result notification letters: Are they easy to read and understand?', Journal of Women's Health, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 545-551. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2010.2330
Marcus, Erin N ; Sanders, Lee M. ; Pereyra, Margaret ; Del Toro, Yanisa ; Romilly, Ada Pat ; Yepes, Monica ; Hooper, Monica W ; Jones, Beth A. / Mammography result notification letters : Are they easy to read and understand?. In: Journal of Women's Health. 2011 ; Vol. 20, No. 4. pp. 545-551.
@article{4e27e8c2fa694f09915ca5615e59ee43,
title = "Mammography result notification letters: Are they easy to read and understand?",
abstract = "Background: Federal law mandates that mammography centers notify women of their result in writing. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability and ease of use of the sample letters provided as a template for the notification letters centers send to patients. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the 43 mammography result notification template letters available from the American College of Radiology and two leading transcription software services. To assess readability, we used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and the Lexile framework. To assess document suitability, we used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Acceptable scores were based on established standards: ≤6th grade for the Flesch-Kincaid level, ≤900 for the Lexile analysis, and ≥40{\%} on the SAM scale. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and ranges were calculated by diagnostic category, as indicated by BI-RADS level. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in readability and suitability by diagnostic category. Results: The Flesch Kincaid score ranged from 7.7 to 13.5, with a mean of 10.2. The Lexile score ranged from 880 to 1270, with a mean of 1113. The mean SAM score ranged from 16{\%} to 36{\%}, with a mean of 29{\%}. Mean grade level, Lexile score, and SAM score did not vary significantly by diagnostic category. No single document had an acceptable suitability score, and only two had acceptable Lexile scores. Common deficiencies included use of the passive voice, vague wording, and technical jargon. Conclusions: The letters we analyzed were written at levels too difficult for many patients to understand. Future investigations should explore clearer ways of communicating mammography results.",
author = "Marcus, {Erin N} and Sanders, {Lee M.} and Margaret Pereyra and {Del Toro}, Yanisa and Romilly, {Ada Pat} and Monica Yepes and Hooper, {Monica W} and Jones, {Beth A.}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1089/jwh.2010.2330",
language = "English",
volume = "20",
pages = "545--551",
journal = "Journal of Women's Health",
issn = "1540-9996",
publisher = "Mary Ann Liebert Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mammography result notification letters

T2 - Are they easy to read and understand?

AU - Marcus, Erin N

AU - Sanders, Lee M.

AU - Pereyra, Margaret

AU - Del Toro, Yanisa

AU - Romilly, Ada Pat

AU - Yepes, Monica

AU - Hooper, Monica W

AU - Jones, Beth A.

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Background: Federal law mandates that mammography centers notify women of their result in writing. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability and ease of use of the sample letters provided as a template for the notification letters centers send to patients. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the 43 mammography result notification template letters available from the American College of Radiology and two leading transcription software services. To assess readability, we used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and the Lexile framework. To assess document suitability, we used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Acceptable scores were based on established standards: ≤6th grade for the Flesch-Kincaid level, ≤900 for the Lexile analysis, and ≥40% on the SAM scale. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and ranges were calculated by diagnostic category, as indicated by BI-RADS level. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in readability and suitability by diagnostic category. Results: The Flesch Kincaid score ranged from 7.7 to 13.5, with a mean of 10.2. The Lexile score ranged from 880 to 1270, with a mean of 1113. The mean SAM score ranged from 16% to 36%, with a mean of 29%. Mean grade level, Lexile score, and SAM score did not vary significantly by diagnostic category. No single document had an acceptable suitability score, and only two had acceptable Lexile scores. Common deficiencies included use of the passive voice, vague wording, and technical jargon. Conclusions: The letters we analyzed were written at levels too difficult for many patients to understand. Future investigations should explore clearer ways of communicating mammography results.

AB - Background: Federal law mandates that mammography centers notify women of their result in writing. The purpose of this study is to assess the readability and ease of use of the sample letters provided as a template for the notification letters centers send to patients. Methods: This is a cross-sectional analysis of the 43 mammography result notification template letters available from the American College of Radiology and two leading transcription software services. To assess readability, we used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level scale and the Lexile framework. To assess document suitability, we used the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Acceptable scores were based on established standards: ≤6th grade for the Flesch-Kincaid level, ≤900 for the Lexile analysis, and ≥40% on the SAM scale. Means, standard deviations (SDs), and ranges were calculated by diagnostic category, as indicated by BI-RADS level. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess differences in readability and suitability by diagnostic category. Results: The Flesch Kincaid score ranged from 7.7 to 13.5, with a mean of 10.2. The Lexile score ranged from 880 to 1270, with a mean of 1113. The mean SAM score ranged from 16% to 36%, with a mean of 29%. Mean grade level, Lexile score, and SAM score did not vary significantly by diagnostic category. No single document had an acceptable suitability score, and only two had acceptable Lexile scores. Common deficiencies included use of the passive voice, vague wording, and technical jargon. Conclusions: The letters we analyzed were written at levels too difficult for many patients to understand. Future investigations should explore clearer ways of communicating mammography results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79954507880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79954507880&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1089/jwh.2010.2330

DO - 10.1089/jwh.2010.2330

M3 - Article

C2 - 21428738

AN - SCOPUS:79954507880

VL - 20

SP - 545

EP - 551

JO - Journal of Women's Health

JF - Journal of Women's Health

SN - 1540-9996

IS - 4

ER -