Cranioplasty is a commonly performed reconstructive procedure to restore cranial integrity in patients with acquired skull defects after strokes, traumatic brain injury, and tumors, among other diagnoses. Given the procedure’s high complication rate and extensive perioperative planning, patient education is critical for informed decision-making. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends that online patient education materials (OPEMs) be written at a sixth grade reading level to ensure equitable access to health information. Despite this, OPEMs for surgical interventions frequently exceed these recommendations. This study characterizes the readability and availability of English and Spanish-language OPEMs for cranioplasty.
Methods:
The top 20 English (“cranioplasty”) and Spanish (“craneoplastia”) OPEMs from Google searches were analyzed. English OPEMs were assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Fry Graph (FG), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Spanish OPEMs were analyzed using Fernández-Huerta Reading Ease (FHRE), Gilliam-Peña-Mountain Grade Level (GPM), Spanish Orthographic Length (SOL), and Índice de Legibilidad de Flesch-Szigriszt (INFLESZ).
Results:
No OPEMs met the recommended sixth grade reading level. Among Spanish OPEMs, 55% (11) were written at the high school level and 45% (9) at a college level. Conversely, 35% (7) of English OPEMs were written at the high school level and 65% (13) at the college level. When adapted analog indices were compared across languages, Spanish OPEMs were on average easier to read than English OPEMs. No US healthcare institutions had Spanish OPEMs for cranioplasty and Spanish OPEMs were underrepresented among first-page search results (50%) relative to English OPEMs (70%).
Conclusions:
OPEMs for cranioplasty are written above recommended readability levels in both English and Spanish. Despite the United States’ large Spanish speaking patient population, no U.S. healthcare institutions currently have Spanish OPEMs for cranioplasty.
PiazzaMGradyMS. Cranioplasty. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2017;28(2):257-265. doi:10.1016/j.nec.2016.11.008
2.
AlkhaibaryAAlharbiAAlnefaieNOqalaa AlmubarakAAloraidiAKhairyS. Cranioplasty: a comprehensive review of the history, materials, surgical aspects, and complications. World Neurosurg. 2020;139:445-452. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2020.04.211
3.
LiAAzadTDVeeravaguA, et al. Cranioplasty complications and costs: a national population-level analysis using the MarketScan Longitudinal Database. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:209-220. doi:10.1016/j.wneu.2017.03.022
4.
MeeHAnwarFTimofeevI, et al. Frontiers | Cranioplasty: a multidisciplinary approach. 2022. doi:10.3389/fsurg.2022.864385
GiroirBP. Healthy people 2030: a call to action to lead America to healthier lives. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021;27(Supplement 6):S222-S224. doi:10.1097/PHH.0000000000001266
7.
De OliveiraGSErreaMBialekJKendallMCMcCarthyRJ. The impact of health literacy on shared decision making before elective surgery: a propensity matched case control analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):958. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3755-9
8.
EnglishNCJonesBAChuDI. Addressing low health literacy in surgical populations. Clin Colon Rectal Surg. 2025;38(1):26-33. doi:10.1055/s-0044-1786389
9.
Barros GuinleMINettninEAProloLM. Role of health literacy in neurosurgical outcomes among pediatric and adult patients: a systematic review of international studies and call to action. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2025;36:764-772. doi:10.3171/2025.5.PEDS25172
10.
RothermelLDConleyCCSarodeAL, et al. Health literacy in surgical oncology patients: an observational study at a comprehensive cancer center. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2021;19(12):1407-1414.
11.
KuwabaraASuSKraussJ. Utilizing digital health technologies for patient education in lifestyle medicine. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2020;14(2):137-142. doi:10.1177/1559827619892547
12.
HigashiRTThakurBRepaskyEC, et al. Digital Health Technology use among Spanish speakers in the US: a scoping review. JAMA Netw Open. 2025;8(5):e2510386. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.10386
13.
KesselsRP. Patients’ memory for medical information. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(5):219-222. doi:10.1258/jrsm.96.5.219
14.
WangXCohenRA. Health information technology use among adults: United States, July–December 2022. NCHS Data Brief, no. 482. National Center for Health Statistics; 2023. doi:10.15620/cdc:133700
15.
JohnsonAMBrimhallASJohnsonET, et al. A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient education through patient portals. JAMIA Open. 2023;6(1):ooac085. doi:10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac085
EltoraiAEGhanianSAdamsCAJrBornCTDanielsAH. Readability of patient education materials on the American Association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014;3(2):e18161.
18.
WillJGuptaMZaretskyJDowlathATestaPFeldmanJ. Enhancing the readability of online patient education materials using large language models: cross-sectional study. J Med Internet Res. 2025;27:e69955.
19.
DarazLMorrowASPonceOJ, et al. Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(5):487-492.
HernandezJDemirandaLPerisetlaP, et al. A systematic review and narrative synthesis of health literacy interventions among Spanish speaking populations in the United States. BMC Public Health. 2024;24:1713. doi:10.1186/s12889-024-19166-6
22.
YuYSAltaresALeibA, et al. Sociodemographic disparities in health literacy among American adults: a national survey study. Prev Med Rep. 2025;57:103179. doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2025.103179
23.
EscobedoLECervantesLHavranekE. Barriers in healthcare for Latinx patients with limited English proficiency-a narrative review. J Gen Intern Med. 2023;38(5):1264-1271. doi:10.1007/s11606-022-07995-3
24.
MillarRJSahooSYamashitaTCumminsPA. Literacy skills, language use, and online health information seeking among Hispanic adults in the United States. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(8):1595-1600. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2020.02.030
25.
MazmudarRSShethATripathiRScottJF. Readability of online Spanish patient education materials in dermatology. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021;313(3):201-204. doi:10.1007/s00403-020-02036-7
26.
GrellingerEDSwarupI. Barriers to health care communication: patient education resource readability and Spanish translation for slipped capital femoral epiphysis. J Pediatr Orthop Soc N Am. 2024;8:100076. doi:10.1016/j.jposna.2024.100076
27.
SantosPJFDaarDAPaydarKZWirthGA. Readability of online materials for rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg. 2018;7(1):89-96.
HaddenKBPrinceLJamesLHollandJTrudeauCR. Readability of human subjects training materials for research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018;13(1):95-100. doi:10.1177/1556264617742238
31.
FernándezAM. Analizador de legibilidad de texto. Legible. November27, 2016. Accessed March 4, 2026. https://legible.es/
AgarwalNHansberryDRSabourinVTomeiKLPrestigiacomoCJ. A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1257-1259. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060
UrmanAMakhortykhM. You are how (and where) you search? Comparative analysis of web search behavior using web tracking data. J Comput Soc Sci. 2023;6(2):1-16. doi:10.1007/s42001-023-00208-9
WirthPJWardenAMMouraSPAttaluriPKLarsonJD. Readability of patient education materials in plastic surgery: assessing 14 years of progress. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025;13(2):e6541. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006541
38.
ZamoreZAzadCLZhuLLoweCGiladiAM. Readability of patient-reported outcome measures used in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2024;12(12):e6351. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000006351
39.
NguyenATLiRAGosainAKGalianoRD. Readability of online patient education materials for cleft care: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2026;63:1223-1232. doi:10.1177/10556656251327803
40.
ZhangDEarpBEKilgallenEEBlazarP. Readability of online hand surgery patient educational materials: evaluating the trend since 2008. J Hand Surg Am. 2022;47(2):186.e1-186.e8.
41.
Nnamani SilvaONAmmanuelSGSegobianoBMEdwardsCSHoffmanWY. Assessing the readability of online patient education resources related to gynecomastia. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;87(2):123-125.
42.
ShinAPaidisettyPSChivukulaSWangLKChenW. Assessing the readability of online English and Spanish Resources for Polydactyly and Syndactyly. Ann Plast Surg. 2024;93(5):546-550.
43.
JohnsonARBravoMGGranoffMDLeeBT. Cultural insensitivity pervasive in Spanish online cosmetic surgery resources: a call to action. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82(4S Suppl 3):S228-S233.
44.
SathyanarayananSPaidisettyPWangLKPGosmanAWilliamsSChenW. Assessing the Readability of Online English and Spanish Language Patient Education Resources Provided by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons, and American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons. Ann Plast Surg. 2024;92(3):263-266.
45.
DovalARibaLTranBRuddRLeeB. Abstract 116: literacy analysis of Spanish online resources for Breast Reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:91-92.
46.
BlountTMoffittSFakhreF, et al. Readability of online materials in Spanish and English for Breast Reduction Insurance Coverage. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2024;48(7):1436-1443. doi:10.1007/s00266-023-03570-1
47.
PrestinAVieuxSNChouWY. Is online health activity alive and well or flatlining? Findings from 10 years of the Health Information National Trends Survey. J Health Commun. 2015;20(7):790-798.
48.
BorgesdoNascimentoIJPizarroABAlmeidaJM, et al. Infodemics and health misinformation: a systematic review of reviews. Bull World Health Organ. 2022;100(9):544-561. doi:10.2471/BLT.21.287654
49.
KuftaAYDjalilianAR. Enhancing patient education with AI: A readability analysis of AI-Generated versus American Academy of Ophthalmology Online Patient Education Materials. J Clin Med. 2025;14(19):6968. doi:10.3390/jcm14196968
50.
WangKMRamirezJLIannuzziJCUlloaJG. Assessing the readability of English and Spanish online patient educational materials for deep venous thrombosis. J Surg Res. 2024;303:89-94. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2024.08.013
51.
Velasco-MondragonEJimenezAPalladino-DavisAGDavisDEscamilla-CejudoJA. Hispanic health in the USA: a scoping review of the literature. Public Health Rev. 2016;37(1):31. doi:10.1186/s40985-016-0043-2
52.
MondalHMondalSPodderI. Using ChatGPT for writing articles for patients’ education for dermatological diseases: A pilot study. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2023;14:482.
53.
RouhiADGhanemYKYolchievaL, et al. Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials on aortic stenosis? A pilot study. Cardiol Ther. 2024;13(1):137-147. doi:10.1007/s40119-023-00347-0
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
