Skip to Content
Authors Maciolek KA, Jarrard DF, Abel EJ, Best SL
Author Profile(s)
Journal Urology Volume: 109 Pages: 101-106
Publish Date 2017 Nov
PubMed ID 28780302

To evaluate the accuracy, readability, understandability, and actionability of Internet patient education materials (PEM) about transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy.A comprehensive Internet search was performed to find PEM with pre- or postbiopsy instructions. PEM that were duplicates, government affiliated, international, or video based were excluded. Biopsy instructions were evaluated for accuracy and presence of essential topics. Readability was assessed via word count and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. Understandability and actionability were measured using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Effects of authorship and geographical variation were determined using Fischer exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests.We identified 148 unique PEM. Only 31 (21%) sites adhered to the recommended <8th grade reading level. Most PEM did not contain recommended graphics (14%), checklists (2%), or summaries (6%). The PEMAT understandability score for academic PEM was higher than private (P = .02) and unaffiliated PEM (P = .01). No websites had inaccurate content. Only 2 PEM sites (1%) included all essential content (stop anticoagulants, antibiotics, need for urinalysis, biopsy pain, when to resume activity, and bleeding complications). Few significant differences based on geographic region were observed for word count, readability, PEMAT scores, or content.Transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy PEM adhere poorly to guidelines for easy-to-understand materials. Most PEM lack vital information and are written at a reading level that is too complex for patient comprehension. The urology community can construct better websites by consulting PEM advisory materials and providing nontechnical language, figures, and specific instructions. Copyright © 2018 The Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System