ArticlePregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.)2026
Readability of Epic's Obstetric Discharge Education.
Article in Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In obstetrics, patients with insufficient health literacy have a higher likelihood of adverse perinatal outcomes. The American Medical Association (AMA) recommends all patient-facing health information be written at or below a sixth-grade reading level. The reading level of standardized obstetric patient education materials embedded into Epic via "Patient Pass/Exit Care" package published by Elsevier is unknown. Since the Spanish versions of the materials have not been back-translated, the readability of those materials also requires further assessment. In this study, our aims were to (1) characterize overall readability of Epic's obstetric patient education documents, (2) assess differences in readability between English and Spanish materials, and (3) understand differences in readability by subject material, stratified by language. Methods: Using the "Clinical References" tab in Epic, obstetric patient education materials were extracted in both English and Spanish. Materials were evaluated using metrics for assessing readability that have been validated in English and/or Spanish: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Fernandez-Heurta (FH), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG). Education was coded by content category. Paired Results: Of 235 total texts analyzed, grade level for English was 6.2 (SD 1.0) using the FKGL metric versus 4.2 (SD 0.5) for Spanish content that used the validated FH. Overall, the English documents were 2.0 grade levels higher than the corresponding Spanish documents (95% CI, 1.8-2.1). SMOG mean grade level for English materials was 9.7 (SD 0.9) versus 6.2 (SD 0.6) for Spanish materials ( Conclusion: Existing obstetric patient education materials embedded in the Epic electronic medical record (EMR) do not meet AMA standards for readability and comprehension. Differences between English and Spanish materials highlight a potential for disparities in patient understanding of their plans of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.