{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024600246002460024, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006560065600656006, 'mean_word_length': 5.48936170212766, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Text Comprehensibility of Hospital Report Cards].

Objectives: Recently, the number of hospital report cards that compare quality of hospitals and present information from German quality reports has greatly increased. Objectives of this study were to a) identify suitable methods for measuring the readability and comprehensibility of hospital report cards, b) to obtain reliable information on the comprehensibility of texts for laymen, c) to give recommendations for improvements and d) to recommend public health actions. Methods: The readability and comprehensibility of the texts were tested with a) a computer-aided evaluation of formal text characteristics (readability indices Flesch (German formula) and 1. Wiener Sachtextformel formula), b) an expert-based heuristic analysis of readability and comprehensibility of texts (counting technical terms and analysis of text simplicity as well as brevity and conciseness using the Hamburg intelligibility model) and c) a survey of subjects about the comprehensibility of individual technical terms, the assessment of the comprehensibility of the presentations and the subjects' decisions in favour of one of the 5 presented clinics due to the better quality of data. In addition, the correlation between the results of the text analysis with the results from the survey of subjects was tested. Results: The assessment of texts with the computer-aided evaluations showed poor comprehensibility values. The assessment of text simplicity using the Hamburg intelligibility model showed poor comprehensibility values (-0.3). On average, 6.8% of the words used were technical terms. A review of 10 technical terms revealed that in all cases only a minority of respondents (from 4.4% to 39.1%) exactly knew what was meant by each of them. Most subjects (62.4%) also believed that unclear terms worsened their understanding of the information offered. The correlation analysis showed that presentations with a lower frequency of technical terms and better values for the text simplicity were better understood. Conclusion: The determination of the frequency of technical terms and the assessment of text simplicity using the Hamburg intelligibility model were suitable methods to determine the readability and comprehensibility of presentations of quality indicators. The analysis showed predominantly poor comprehensibility values and indicated the need to improve the texts of report cards.