Approximately 90 million American adults have literacy skills that test below a high school reading level. Websites written above this level can pose a challenge for those seeking online information about prostate cancer treatment options. In this study we determine the readability of selected websites using a systematic search process and validated readability formulas.

Materials and Methods:

We identified the 3 most popular keywords from 513 terms related to prostate cancer treatment options. We then systematically collected 270 websites from the top 3 search engines, and excluded from study those that were nonEnglish, not primarily text, irrelevant and/or duplicated. We used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch Reading Ease to determine scores for each site.


A total of 62 unique websites were analyzed. Median Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 12.0 (range 8.0 to 12.0) and median Flesch Reading Ease score was 38.1 (range 0.0 to 65.5). Only 3 sites (4.8%) were written below a high school reading level (less than 9.0).


Few websites with discussions on prostate cancer treatment options are written below a high school reading level. This is problematic for a third of Americans who seek to further educate themselves using online resources. Clinicians can use this information to guide their patients to appropriate websites.


  • 1 The Social Life of Health Information, 2011. Accessed October 10, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 2 : Current Population Survey. : October 2009. Google Scholar
  • 3 Opportunity for All: How Library Policies and Practices Impact Public Internet Access: Report from the U.S. IMPACT study. Accessed December 21, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 4 : Urology and the Internet: an evaluation of internet use by urology patients and of information available on urological topics. BJU Int2000; 86: 191. Google Scholar
  • 5 : Does a controversial topic affect the quality of urologic information on the Internet?. Urology2011; 78: 1051. Google Scholar
  • 6 : Robotic cystectomy and the Internet: separating fact from fiction. Urol Oncol2011; 29: 393. Google Scholar
  • 7 : Myelomeningocele information on the internet is accessible and of variable quality, and requires a high reading level. J Urol2007; 177: 1138. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 8 : Prostate cancer on the Internet–information or misinformation?. J Urol2006; 175: 1836. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 9 : Searching robotic prostatectomy online: what information is available?. Urology2011; 77: 941. Google Scholar
  • 10 : Assessing readability of consumer health information: an exploratory study. Stud Health Technol Inform2004; 107: 869. Google Scholar
  • 11 : Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press2004. Google Scholar
  • 12 : The efficacy of written screening tools in an inner city hospital: literacy based limitations on patient access to appropriate care. J Urol2007; 178: 623. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 13 : Assessment of the performance of the American Urological Association symptom score in 2 distinct patient populations. J Urol2009; 181: 230. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 14 : Why literacy matters: Links between reading ability and health. Arch Ophthalmol1999; 117: 100. Google Scholar
  • 15 : Health literacy and shared decision making for prostate cancer patients with low socioeconomic status. Cancer Invest2001; 19: 684. Google Scholar
  • 16 Medline Plus: How to Write Easy-to-Read Health Materials. Accessed October 15, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 17 : Health information on the Internet: accessibility, quality, and readability in English and Spanish. JAMA2001; 285: 2612. Google Scholar
  • 18 : Readability of health related quality of life instruments in urology. J Urol2010; 183: 1977. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 : Pediatric urology and the Internet–does an uncommon topic decrease content quality?. J Urol2009; 182: 1569. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 20 : Readability assessment of Internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care2008; 53: 1310. Google Scholar
  • 21 : Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. N Engl J Med2003; 348: 721. Google Scholar
  • 22 Experian Hitwise: Search Engine Trends: Top 5 Search Engines by Total Visits. Accessed October 29, 2011. Google Scholar
  • 23 : Use of the internet for self-education by patients with prostate cancer. Urology2001; 57: 230. Google Scholar
  • 24 : Lack of comprehension of common prostate cancer terms in an underserved population. J Clin Oncol2009; 27: 2015. Google Scholar
  • 25 : Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns2004; 55: 275. Google Scholar

Loyola University Medical Center, Maywood, Illinois