Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract While patient education materials (PEMs) across various specialties have been reported as being too difficult to read, the quality and understandability of PEMs related to scar management have not been assessed. In this study, we report the breadth of scar management interventions and readability of online PEMs authored by academic societies and university hospitals. Websites of academic medical societies and university hospitals with scar revision PEMs were assessed for relevance. PEM readability was assessed via Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fox Index scores. Understandability and actionability were evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A total of 26 scar revision PEMs met the inclusion criteria. The most commonly mentioned scar management interventions were scar revision surgery (73%) and laser scar revision (70%), with minimal emphasis on noninvasive methods like scar massage or sun protection. Readability analysis yielded a mean Flesch reading level of 8.8. Overall, PEMAT understandability of online scar treatment PEMs was moderate, with a median of 76.0% (IQR 71.5%-80.5%). PEMs from all specialties and institution types were lacking in actionability, with median actionability of 40.8% (IQR 38.1%-60.0%). Online scar revision PEMs included a wide breadth of scar management interventions; however, the least costly interventions, such as sun protection and scar massage, were not commonly included. PEMs for scar management could be improved by simplifying language, including visual aids, and including checklists or specific steps, patients can take to take action on scar management interventions.
Manasyan et al. (Tue,) studied this question.