Online information on dysmenorrhoea: An evaluation of readability, credibility, quality and usability

Abstract

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.

Quality and Readability of Web-Based Information for Patients With Pancreatic Cysts: DISCERN and Readability Test Analysis

“…Few websites provided a complete description of the management options (ie, radiological surveillance vs surgical treatment). Similar limitations have been described for other health conditions such as pancreatic cancer and gynecological disorders [4,5,7,35,36]. Despite the overall lack of high-quality web-based health information, a few sources were excellent.…”

Credibility evaluation of scientific information on websites: Designing and evaluating an exploratory model

“…Previous evidence indicates the widespread use of and trust in web information. A new generation of web and social networks, in which users have more freedom to create content and information as quickly and easily as possible, has further challenged the issue (Jacobs et al, 2017; Klawitter and Hargittai, 2018; Lovett et al, 2019).…”

Guiding principles for evaluating tertiary health care resources: The A2C2QUIRE framework

“…Despite these many benefits, there are several considerations that must be recognized when evaluating social media as a means of providing drug and health information. In particular, it should be noted that there is a high degree of variability in the quality, accuracy, completeness, and scholarship of most FOAM content on social media . Some blogs may be entirely opinion‐based, while others may be extensively referenced with updated literature.…”

“…In particular, it should be noted that there is a high degree of variability in the quality, accuracy, completeness, and scholarship of most FOAM content on social media. [49][50][51][52][53][54] Some blogs may be entirely opinion-based, while others may be extensively referenced with updated literature. As alluded to above, most FOAM content does not undergo a prospective peer review and, instead, relies on peer review after it has been posted/published.…”