@article {Rughanie391, author = {Guy Rughani and Peter Hanlon and Neave Corcoran and Frances S Mair}, title = {The readability of general practice websites: a cross-sectional analysis of all general practice websites in Scotland}, volume = {71}, number = {706}, pages = {e391--e398}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.3399/BJGP.2020.0820}, publisher = {Royal College of General Practitioners}, abstract = {Background General practice websites are an increasingly important point of interaction, but their readability is largely unexplored. One in four adults struggle with basic literacy, and there is a socioeconomic gradient. Readable content is a prerequisite to promoting health literacy.Aim To assess general practice website readability by analysing text and design factors, and to assess whether practices adapted their website text to the likely literacy levels of their populations.Design and setting Websites for all general practices across Scotland were analysed from March to December 2019, using a cross-sectional design.Method Text was extracted from five webpages per website and eight text readability factors were measured, including the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. The relationship between readability and a practice population{\textquoteright}s level of deprivation, measured using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), was assessed. Overall, 10 design factors contributing to readability and accessibility were scored.Results In total, 86.4\% (n = 813/941) of Scottish practices had a website; 22.9\% (n = 874/3823) of webpages were written at, or below, the government-recommended reading level for online content (9{\textendash}14 years old), and the content of the remaining websites, 77.1\% (n = 2949/3823), was suitable for a higher reading age. Of all webpages, 80.5\% (n = 3077/3823) were above the recommended level for easy-to-understand {\textquoteleft}plain English{\textquoteright}. There was no statistically significant association between webpage reading age and SIMD. Only 6.7\% (n = 51/764) of websites achieved all design and accessibility recommendations.Conclusion Changes to practice websites could improve readability and promote health literacy, but practices will need financial resources and ongoing technical support if this is to be achieved and maintained. Failure to provide readable and accessible websites may widen health inequalities; the topic will become increasingly important as online service use accelerates.}, issn = {0960-1643}, URL = {https://bjgp.org/content/71/706/e391}, eprint = {https://bjgp.org/content/71/706/e391.full.pdf}, journal = {British Journal of General Practice} }