Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease

Abstract

There are concerns over the reliability and comprehensibility of health-related information on the internet. The goal of our research was to analyze the readability, reliability, and quality of information obtained from websites associated with Behçet’s disease (BD). On September 20, 2021, the term BD was used to perform a search on Google, and 100 eligible websites were identified. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog (GFOG) were used to evaluate the readability of the website. The JAMA score was used to assess the websites’ reliability, the DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) were used to assess quality, and Alexa was used to analyze their popularity. Sections of the text were evaluated, and the results revealed that the mean FRES was 35.49±14.42 (difficult) and the mean GFOG was 14.93±3.13 years (very difficult). According to the JAMA scores, 36% of the websites had a high reliability rating and 20% adhered to the HONcode. The readability was found to significantly differ from the reliability of the websites (p<0.05). Moreover, websites with scientific content were found to have higher readability and reliability (p<0.05). The readability of BD-related information on the Internet was found to be considerably higher than that recommended by the National Health Institute’s Grade 6, with moderate reliability and good quality. We believe that online information should have some level of readability and must have reliable content that is appropriate to educate the public, particularly for websites that provide with patient education material.

How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability

“…After the search, the uniform resource locators (URLs) of the top 150 websites that the Google search engine provided for the term used in this study were recorded according to the methodologies described in similar studies. [7,8,11,13,15,16] The ten websites included in the previous study methodologies, ranked on the first page of the Google search engine, were evaluated as the most viewed websites. [7,11,17]…”

“…Patients seek information about their disease and possible treatment options using their PEM. [6][7][8] There is a huge amount of health-related information on the Internet from various sources. However, patients use of this information is closely related to their health literacy.…”

“…A study on this subject highlighted that approximately one-third of adults and approximately 2-thirds of individuals over the age of 65 in The United States of America have only basic health literacy. [6][7][8] During the preparation of PEMs on the Internet, information should be easy for readers to understand. Therefore, there are recommendations for the preparation of PEMs.…”

“…This institution recommends that Internet-based PEMs be written in a language below the sixth grade level. [7,8,10,11] Websites prepared above this value may be difficult to read. This is not a benefit to the reader.…”

“…In previous studies, the reliability and quality of the information contained in Internet PEMs, as well as readability, have been extensively studied. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] However, there are no studies evaluating the readability, quality, and content of Internet-based PEMs on a subject such as H pylori, which has a significant impact on public health.…”