Multilingual Analysis of the Quality and Readability of Online Health Information on the Adverse Effects of Breast Cancer Treatments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Fefer M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7287949 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveAssessment of the readability and quality of online health information regarding parathyroidectomy.Study designCross-sectional analysis.SettingWebsites providing patient-oriented health information regarding parathyroidectomy obtained via the Google search engine.MethodsThe top 75 Google search results for "parathyroidectomy,""parathyroid surgery," and "parathyroid gland removal" were reviewed. Websites were categorized by website type and country of origin. Readability was assessed by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed per JAMA benchmark criteria and the DISCERN instrument.ResultsA total of 74 unique websites were evaluated. The mean readability of the assessed websites exceeded the recommended sixth-grade reading level on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (P < .001). Readability did not vary significantly by website type. Websites originating from the United Kingdom were significantly more readable than those from the United States. The majority of assessed websites were of poor quality (n = 42, 56.8%) on assessment based on the DISCERN instrument. Quality varied significantly by website category on the JAMA benchmark criteria (P < .001) and DISCERN score (P = .049) with commercial websites receiving the highest scores. DISCERN score also varied significantly by country of origin (P = .036) with UK sites receiving highest mean DISCERN scores.ConclusionOnline health information regarding parathyroidectomy is largely of poor quality and is poorly readable for many patients. Institutions utilizing well-defined guidelines for development of patient educational resources may provide online health information of greater quality and readability.
| S-EPMC9597036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:To evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea, including readability, credibility, quality and usability. BACKGROUND:Menstrual pain impacts 45%-95% of women of reproductive age globally and is the leading cause of school and work absences among women. Women often seek online information on dysmenorrhoea; however, little is known about the information quality. DESIGN:This was a descriptive study to evaluate online information on dysmenorrhoea. METHODS:We imitated search strategies of the general public. Specifically, we employed the three most popular search engines worldwide-Google, Yahoo and Bing-and used lay search terms, "period pain" and "menstrual cramps." We screened 60 web pages. Following removal of duplicates and irrelevant web pages, 25 met the eligibility criteria. Two team members independently evaluated the included web pages using standardised tools. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade formulas; credibility, quality and usability were evaluated with established tools. We followed the STROBE checklist for reporting this study. RESULTS:For readability, the mean Flesch-Kincaid level was 10th grade. For credibility, 8% of web pages referenced scientific literature and 28% stated the author's name and qualifications. For quality, no web page employed user-driven content production; 8% of web pages referenced evidence-based guidelines, 32% of web pages had accurate content, and 4% of web pages recommended shared decision-making. Most web pages were interactive and included nontextual information. Some nontextual information was inaccurate. CONCLUSION:Online information on dysmenorrhoea has generally low readability, mixed credibility and variable quality. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE:Strategies to improve health information on dysmenorrhoea include avoiding complex terms, incorporating visual aids, presenting evidence-based information and developing a decision aid to support shared decision-making. Healthcare providers should be aware of the problematic health information that individuals are exposed to and provide education about how to navigate online health information.
| S-EPMC6739134 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOsteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in people older than 65 years. Readability of online OA information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online OA information to be poor.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to review the readability and quality of current online information regarding OA.MethodsThe term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analyzed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons), and nontext pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. Website quality was scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification, age of content, content producer, and author characteristics were noted.ResultsA total of 37 unique websites were found suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7th to 8th grade level. Of the 37, 1 (2.7%) website met all 4 JAMA criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was "fair," compared with the "poor" grading of a 2003 study. HONcode-endorsed websites (43%, 16/37) were of a statistically significant higher quality.ConclusionsReadability of online health information for OA was either equal to or more difficult than the recommended level.
| S-EPMC6754692 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, the Internet seems to be a helpful tool for obtaining information about everything that we think about, including diseases, their prevention and treatment approaches. However, doubts exist regarding the quality and readability of such information. This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic information on periodontal disease.MethodsIn this infodemiological study, the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines were searched using specific Arabic terms on periodontal disease. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The eligible websites were categorized as commercial, health/professional, journalism, and other. The following tools were applied to assess the quality of the information on the included websites: the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN tool. The readability was assessed using an online readability tool.ResultsOf the 300 websites, 89 were eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only two websites (2.3%) were HONcode certified. Based on the DISCERN tool, 43 (48.3%) websites had low scores. The mean score of the JAMA benchmarks was 1.6 ± 1.0, but only 3 (3.4%) websites achieved "yes" responses for all four JAMA criteria. Based on the DISCERN tool, health/professional websites revealed the highest quality of information compared to other website categories. Most of the health/professional websites revealed moderate-quality information, while 55% of the commercial websites, 66% of journalism websites, and 43% of other websites showed poor quality information. Regarding readability, most of the analyzed websites presented simple and readable written content.ConclusionsAside from readable content, Arabic health information on the analyzed websites on periodontal disease is below the required level of quality.
| S-EPMC7863442 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the substantial amount of health-related information available on the Internet, little is known about the accessibility, quality, and reading grade level of that health information.To evaluate health information on breast cancer, depression, obesity, and childhood asthma available through English- and Spanish-language search engines and Web sites.Three unique studies were performed from July 2000 through December 2000. Accessibility of 14 search engines was assessed using a structured search experiment. Quality of 25 health Web sites and content provided by 1 search engine was evaluated by 34 physicians using structured implicit review (interrater reliability >0.90). The reading grade level of text selected for structured implicit review was established using the Fry Readability Graph method.For the accessibility study, proportion of links leading to relevant content; for quality, coverage and accuracy of key clinical elements; and grade level reading formulas.Less than one quarter of the search engine's first pages of links led to relevant content (20% of English and 12% of Spanish). On average, 45% of the clinical elements on English- and 22% on Spanish-language Web sites were more than minimally covered and completely accurate and 24% of the clinical elements on English- and 53% on Spanish-language Web sites were not covered at all. All English and 86% of Spanish Web sites required high school level or greater reading ability.Accessing health information using search engines and simple search terms is not efficient. Coverage of key information on English- and Spanish-language Web sites is poor and inconsistent, although the accuracy of the information provided is generally good. High reading levels are required to comprehend Web-based health information.
| S-EPMC4182102 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn China, the internet has become one of the most important ways to obtain information about breast cancer. However, quantitative evaluations of the quality of Chinese health websites and the breast cancer treatment information they publish are lacking.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the quality of Chinese breast cancer websites and the value, suitability, and accuracy of the breast cancer treatment information they publish.MethodsChinese breast cancer health websites were searched and manually screened according to their Alexa and Baidu search engine rankings. For each website included in the survey, which was conducted on April 8, 2019, the three most recently published papers on the website that met the inclusion criteria were included for evaluation. Three raters assessed all materials using the LIDA, DISCERN, and Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) tools and the Michigan Checklist. Data analysis was completed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0 and Microsoft Excel 2010.ResultsThis survey included 20 Chinese breast cancer websites and 60 papers on breast cancer treatment. The LIDA tool was used to evaluate the quality of the 20 websites. The LIDA's scores of the websites (mean=54.85, SD 3.498; total possible score=81) were low. In terms of the layout, color scheme, search facility, browsing facility, integration of nontextual media, submission of comments, declaration of objectives, content production method, and robust method, more than half of the websites scored 0 (never) or 1 (sometimes). For the online breast cancer treatment papers, the scores were generally low. Regarding suitability, 32 (53.33%) papers were evaluated as presenting unsuitable material. Regarding accuracy, the problems were that the papers were largely not original (44/60, 73%) and lacked references (46/60, 77%).ConclusionsThe quality of Chinese breast cancer websites is poor. The color schemes, text settings, user comment submission functions, and language designs should be improved. The quality of Chinese online breast cancer treatment information is poor; the information has little value to users, and pictorial information is scarcely used. The online breast cancer treatment information is accurate but lacks originality and references. Website developers, governments, and medical professionals should play a full role in the design of health websites, the regulation of online health information, and the use of online health information.
| S-EPMC8663447 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Analyzing the reading grade level of online mental health information is an important first step in ensuring that information is largely accessible by the general public, so as not to perpetuate existing health disparities across socioeconomic groups. The present study systematically examined grade-level readability of mental health information related to various psychiatric diagnoses, obtained from 6 highly utilized mental health websites, using a generalized estimating equations approach. Results suggest that, in general, the readability of mental health information is largely well above the 6th-to-8th grade level recommended by several national health organizations, including the CDC and NIH (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, & Paulsen, 2006; National Institutes of Health, 2001, 2017), with reading-grade-level estimates from the model ranging from 5.62 to 17.9. Further efforts are required to ensure that writers of online health information do not exacerbate existing health disparities by ignoring these guidelines. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
| S-EPMC6453751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous breast cancer risk assessment tools that allow users to input personal risk information and obtain a personalized breast cancer risk estimate are available on the Internet. The goal of these tools is to increase screening awareness and identify modifiable health behaviors; however, the utility of this risk information is limited by the readability of the material. We undertook this study to assess the overall readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and accompanying information, as well as to identify areas of suggested improvement. We searched for breast cancer risk assessment tools, using five search terms, on three search engines. All searches were performed on June 12, 2014. Sites that met inclusion criteria were then assessed for readability using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and the SMOG readability formula (July 1, 2014–January 31, 2015). The primary outcomes are the frequency distribution of overall SAM readability category (superior, adequate, or not suitable) and mean SMOG reading grade level. The search returned 42 sites were eligible for assessment, only 9 (21.4 %) of which achieved an overall SAM superior rating, and 27 (64.3 %) were deemed adequate. The average SMOG reading grade level was grade 12.1 (SD 1.6, range 9–15). The readability of breast cancer risk assessment tools and the sites that host them is an important barrier to risk communication. This study demonstrates that most breast cancer risk assessment tools are not accessible to individuals with limited health literacy skills. More importantly, this study identifies potential areas of improvement and has the potential to heighten a physician’s awareness of the Internet resources a patient might navigate in their quest for breast cancer risk information.
| S-EPMC4621697 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThis study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19.MethodsThree search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were analyzed for eligibility, which resulted in a sample of 36 websites. These websites were subjected to quality assessments using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks tool, the DISCERN tool, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the websites was assessed using an online readability calculator.ResultsAmong the 36 eligible websites, only one (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No website attained a high score based on the criteria of the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5 ± 12.55. As regards the JAMA benchmarks results, a mean score of 2.08 ± 1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only four (11.1%) met all the JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2 ± 7.5, 3.3 ± 0.6 and 93.5 ± 19.4 for the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease scales, respectively.ConclusionAlmost all of the most easily accessible web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 does not meet recognized quality standards regardless of the level of readability and ability to be understood by the general population of Arabic speakers.
| S-EPMC7812558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although online health communities are popular in supporting mental health, factors leading to the helpfulness of mental health information are still under-investigated. Based on the elaboration likelihood model and motivation theory, we incorporate two types of health information-related constructs, i.e., information quality (central route) and responders' effort (peripheral route), and adopt reputation as an extrinsic motivation to build our model. We crawl data from a Chinese online mental health community and extract 11 key variables, and then analyze the model with negative binomial regression. The empirical results indicate that the effect of the length of health information on its helpfulness votes is positively significant, while the effect of readability of health information on its helpfulness votes is relatively negative. In terms of responders' effort, both the timelines of the response and interactive feedback have a significant positive impact on helpfulness of health information votes, while these effects are negatively moderated by the online reputation of responders. This study contributes to the literature on information evaluation mechanisms in online health communities.
| S-EPMC9746233 | biostudies-literature