Online Patient Education Materials on CL Wear Suffer from Poor Readability

Given the findings from this study, optometrists are encouraged to direct their patients to reliable websites and to offer a list of reputable sources of information, as improving patient compliance may assist in reducing the number of serious ocular complications related to CL wear such as contact lens–associated red eye (shown). Photo: Jennifer Harthan, OD. Click image to enlarge. As many contact lens (CL) wearers may resort to online sources to gain a better understanding of the information provided by their practitioners, it is critical to ensure this information is safe, accurate and easy to understand. In a recent study, researchers assessed the reliability and readability of online patient information regarding lens wear and maintenance, given that many users may employ these resources to supplement or replace professional advice. They found that the information presented has a moderately high reliability but may prove difficult to understand for many CL users and lacks visually attractive features to retain the attention of younger patients. The findings were reported in Contact Lens Anterior Eye.Ten frequently asked questions (FAQs) concerning contact lens wear and maintenance were formulated based on clinical experience and literature search. Each was used to query Google and the first 20 eligible websites were analyzed, yielding a final sample of 200 websites. Reliability was assessed using the short version of the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool, while readability was evaluated through the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) tests.A weak but significant correlation was found between EQIP and FRES scores, indicating that CL wear and maintenance evidence possessed moderately high reliability but insufficient readability.The median EQIP score was 68%, with only 30% of websites providing high-quality content (75% or more). Websites from encyclopedias and medical centers/hospitals scored higher in reliability compared to commercial and practitioner sources.Also, as reported in previous studies, websites were found to be particularly lacking in identification data, whereas items included in the structure domain of the EQIP tool were commonly awarded a positive score. Interestingly, the authors noted, better EQIP scores were obtained by encyclopedias and medical centers/hospitals than practitioners or commercial websites, which could be assumed to be addressed specifically to CL users.Regarding readability, FRES and FKGL values were poor, denoting that most of the websites provided information over the recommended difficulty level, and 59.5 % of them contained non-explained technical jargon. Encyclopedia websites had the best readability scores, highlighting the fact that good reliability must not necessarily imply poor readability. “Thus, the present study did not reveal any substantial association between reliability and readability, although, as noted, information was, in general, not easy to understand,” the authors wrote in their paper.The authors suggest that practitioners reinforce instructions through practical in-office demonstrations at all aftercare visits and, given patient consent, should take advantage of novel ways of patient interaction, such as instant messaging and social media that provide short snippets of well-designed visual information on specific aspects of CL wear and maintenance.“Given the critical role of online resources in patient education, eye care professionals should guide patients towards reliable, comprehensible websites and consider modern communication strategies to enhance compliance and safety in CL wear,” the authors concluded in their paper.Click here for the journal source. Cardona G, Vega C. Reliability and readability of online patient information for contact lens wearers. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. September 9, 2025. [Epub ahead of print.] This article was developed by the editorial staff in conjunction with experts in the field. In the process, AI may have been among the editorial tools used to meet the goals of human editors, who approved all content.