Evaluating the readability of online testosterone search results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Pominville R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9979109 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Evaluating the readability of online testosterone search results.
Pominville Raymond R Tay Kimberly K Callegari Michael M Pei Evonne E Sarica Erhan E Jesse Erin E Prunty Megan M Loeb Aram A Thirumavalavan Nannan N Ghayda Ramy Abou RA
International journal of impotence research 20230302 4
With the budding interest in testosterone therapy (TTh), online health information plays a significant role in patients' health care decisions. Therefore, we evaluated the source and readability of web-based information available to patients regarding TTh on Google. From Google search terms "Testosterone Therapy" and "Testosterone Replacement", 77 unique sources were identified. Sources were categorized as Academic, Commercial, Institutional, or Patient Support, then evaluated using validated re ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to "post-COVID-19 pain."MethodsOne-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms "post-COVID-19 pain" and "pain after COVID-19" using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively.ResultsUpon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002).ConclusionThe readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.
| S-EPMC9308460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDyslipidemia management is a cornerstone in cardiovascular disease prevention and relies heavily on patient adherence to lifestyle modifications and medications. Numerous cholesterol patient education materials are available online, but it remains unclear whether these resources are suitable for the majority of North American adults given the prevalence of low health literacy. This review aimed to (1) identify printable cholesterol patient education materials through an online search, and (2) evaluate the readability, understandability, and actionability of each resource to determine its utility in practice.Methods and resultsWe searched the MEDLINE database for peer-reviewed educational materials and the websites of Canadian and American national health organizations for gray literature. Readability was measured using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and scores between fifth- and sixth-grade reading levels were considered adequate. Understandability and actionability were scored using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool and categorized as superior (>80%), adequate (50%-70%), or inadequate (<50%). Our search yielded 91 results that were screened for eligibility. Among the 22 educational materials included in the study, 15 were identified through MEDLINE, and 7 were from websites. The readability across all materials averaged an 11th-grade reading level (Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level=11.9±2.59). The mean±SD understandability and actionability scores were 82.8±6.58% and 40.9±28.60%, respectively.ConclusionsThe readability of online cholesterol patient education materials consistently exceeds the health literacy level of the average North American adult. Many resources also inadequately describe action items for individuals to self-manage their cholesterol, representing an implementation gap in cardiovascular disease prevention.
| S-EPMC11262522 | 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: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:BackgroundAbout 6 million people search for health information on the Internet each day in the United States. Both patients and caregivers search for information about prescribed courses of treatments, unanswered questions after a visit to their providers, or diet and exercise regimens. Past literature has indicated potential challenges around quality in health information available on the Internet. However, diverse information exists on the Internet-ranging from government-initiated webpages to personal blog pages. Yet we do not fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of different types of information available on the Internet.ObjectiveThe objective of this research was to investigate the strengths and challenges of various types of health information available online and to suggest what information sources best fit various question types.MethodsWe collected questions posted to and the responses they received from an online diabetes community and classified them according to Rothwell's classification of question types (fact, policy, or value questions). We selected 60 questions (20 each of fact, policy, and value) and the replies the questions received from the community. We then searched for responses to the same questions using a search engine and recorded theResultsCommunity responses answered more questions than did search results overall. Search results were most effective in answering value questions and least effective in answering policy questions. Community responses answered questions across question types at an equivalent rate, but most answered policy questions and the least answered fact questions. Value questions were most answered by community responses, but some of these answers provided by the community were incorrect. Fact question search results were the most clinically valid.ConclusionsThe Internet is a prevalent source of health information for people. The information quality people encounter online can have a large impact on them. We present what kinds of questions people ask online and the advantages and disadvantages of various information sources in getting answers to those questions. This study contributes to addressing people's online health information needs.
| S-EPMC4865652 | biostudies-literature
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:IntroductionTestosterone-boosting supplements (T-Boosters) are prominently featured on Amazon.com, with numerous dedicated pages and claims that they "naturally" increase testosterone levels.AimTo evaluate the highest rated and frequently reviewed T-Boosters on Amazon.com to facilitate patient counseling regarding marketing myths, T-Booster formulations, and evidence for efficacy and safety.MethodsThe Amazon marketplace was queried using the key words "testosterone" + "booster," with default search settings and ranking items based on relevance. The top 5 T-Boosters identified on July 22, 2018, were reviewed based on price, ratings, reviews, manufacturer details, and ingredients. Consumer reviews were categorized using core themes in the Androgen Deficiency in the Aging Male (ADAM) questionnaire as a proxy to understand T-Booster efficacy and reanalyzed after filtration of untrustworthy comments using ReviewMeta.com, a proprietary Amazon customer review analysis software.Main outcome measuresQuantitative and qualitative evaluation of T-Boosters on Amazon.com was performed.ResultsThe top 5 T-Boosters had an average ± SD of 2,761 ± 5,112 reviews and a rating of 4.56 ± 0.25 stars. 19 unique ingredients were identified across these T-Boosters, and literature review revealed 191 studies involving the 10 most common ingredients, of which 19% involved human subjects, 53% animal models, 15% in vitro studies, and 12% case reports or review articles. Among 37 human studies, 30% observed an increase in T levels, 3% a decrease, 46% no effect, and 22% were indeterminate. Analysis of top customer reviews from the first 2 pages of reviews for each supplement revealed differences in the ADAM score before and after ReviewMeta.com filtration. After filtration, there was a 91% decrease in users reporting increased libido, a 59% decrease in reports of increased energy, a 93% decrease in reports of improved strength/endurance, a 60% decrease in reports of improved erections, an elimination of reports of improved work performance, a 67% decrease in reports of improved sleep, and an 89% decrease in reports of improved sports ability.Clinical implicationsOur study can serve as a guide for providers to counsel patients about the efficacy of popular online T-Boosters as well as the prevalence of disingenuous reviews associated with these products on online marketplaces like Amazon.com.Strengths & limitationsStrengths include the novel approach to assess consumers' perceptions and satisfaction of T-Boosters, as well as summary information that clinicians can provide patients. Limitations include selection bias, a small number of supplements analyzed, and the proprietary nature of the Amazon review analysis software.ConclusionT-Boosters are easily available online. Our investigation revealed that limited human studies have evaluated T-Boosters, resulting in no definitive findings of efficacy. In the absence of additional human studies, patients should be cautioned before considering T-Boosters, given the availability of highly effective therapies approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Balasubramanian A, Thirumavalavan N, Srivatsav A, et al. Testosterone Imposters: An Analysis of Popular Online Testosterone Boosting Supplements. J Sex Med 2019;16:203-212.
| S-EPMC6407704 | biostudies-literature
Project description:One of the goals of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) is to disseminate patient education materials that suit the readability skills of the patient population. According to standard guidelines from healthcare organizations, the readability of patient education materials should be no higher than the sixth-grade level. We hypothesized the readability level of patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site would be higher than the recommended grade level, regardless when the material was available online. Readability scores of all articles from the AAOS Internet-based patient information Web site, "Your Orthopaedic Connection," were determined using the Flesch-Kincaid grade formula. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level of the 426 unique articles was 10.43. Only 10 (2%) of the articles had the recommended readability level of sixth grade or lower. The readability of the articles did not change with time. Our findings suggest the majority of the patient education materials available on the AAOS Web site had readability scores that may be too difficult for comprehension by a substantial portion of the patient population.
| S-EPMC2311488 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundLipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) is a highly proatherogenic lipid fraction that is a clinically significant risk modifier. Patients wanting to learn more about Lp(a) are likely to use online patient educational materials (OPEMs). However, the readability of OPEMs may exceed the health literacy of the public.ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the readability of OPEMs related to Lp(a). We hypothesized that the readability of these online materials would exceed the sixth grade level recommended by the American Medical Association.MethodsUsing an online search engine, we queried the top 20 search results from 10 commonly used Lp(a)-related search terms to identify a total of 200 websites. We excluded duplicate websites, advertised results, research journal articles, or non-patient-directed materials, such as those intended only for health professionals or researchers. Grade level readability was calculated using 5 standard readability metrics (automated readability index, SMOG index, Coleman-Liau index, Gunning Fog score, Flesch-Kincaid score) to produce robust point (mean) and interval (CI) estimates of readability. Generalized estimating equations were used to model grade level readability by each search term, with the 5 readability scores nested within each OPEM.ResultsA total of 27 unique websites were identified for analysis. The average readability score for the aggregated results was a 12.2 (95% CI 10.9798-13.3978) grade level. OPEMs were grouped into 6 categories by primary source: industry, lay press, research foundation and nonprofit organizations, university or government, clinic, and other. The most readable category was OPEMs published by universities or government agencies (9.0, 95% CI 6.8-11.3). The least readable OPEMs on average were the ones published by the lay press (13.0, 95% CI 11.2-14.8). All categories exceeded the sixth grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association.ConclusionsLack of access to readable OPEMs may disproportionately affect patients with low health literacy. Ensuring that online content is understandable by broad audiences is a necessary component of increasing the impact of novel therapeutics and recommendations regarding Lp(a).
| S-EPMC8790699 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOwner comprehension is vital to recruitment and study success, but limited information exists regarding the readability of public-facing veterinary clinical trial descriptions.ObjectivesThe current study sought to evaluate the readability of public-facing online veterinary clinical trial descriptions from academic institutions and private referral practices.AnimalsNone.MethodsThis prospective study assessed readability in a convenience sample of veterinary clinical trial study descriptions using 3 common methods: the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (F-K), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), and online Automatic Readability Checker (ARC). Results were compared across specialties and between academic and private institutions.ResultsGrade level and readability consensus scores (RCSs) were obtained for 61 online clinical trial descriptions at universities (n = 49) and private practices (n = 12). Average grade-level RCS for study descriptions was 14.13 (range, 9-21). Using Microsoft Word, the FRES score was higher in descriptions from universities compared to private practices (P = .03), and F-K scores were lower in university compared to private practice descriptions (P = .03). FRES (P = .07), F-K (P = .12), and readability consensus (P = .17) scores obtained from ARC were not different between institution types. Forty-eight studies (79%) had RCSs over 12, equivalent to reading material at college or graduate school levels.Conclusions and clinical importanceSimilar to other areas in veterinary communication, the evaluated veterinary clinical trial descriptions used for advertising and recruitment far exceeded the recommended 6th-grade reading level for medical information. Readability assessments are straightforward to conduct, and ensuring health literacy should be a customary best practice in veterinary medicine and clinical research.
| S-EPMC10658532 | biostudies-literature