Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea

Chi, Ethan; Jabbour, Noel; Aaronson, Nicole Leigh

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.031

Cited by 38 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Within the otolaryngology literature, studies on the quality and readability of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis and tonsillectomy found no correlation between quality and FRES, and a study on the quality and readability of laryngomalacia websites actually found a positive correlation between quality and FRES. 3,46,47 The current study examined a narrower, more specialized health topic than these previously described studies, perhaps yielding more complex website content. Based on QUEST score, this study found no quality difference between web pages with and without HONcode certification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…50 Although most of the currently available literature on the quality of online health information has used DISCERN, our group chose QUEST because of its advertised broad applicability, as we did not limit our study to websites about treatment. 3,46,47 Our group found QUEST to be well-designed, user friendly, and applicable to a wide variety of health-related content.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives/Hypothesis The incidence of human papillomavirus–positive (HPV+) oropharyngeal cancer is rising, but public knowledge about this diagnosis remains low. This study aimed to investigate the quality and readability of online information about HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer. Study Design Cross‐sectional website analysis. Methods This study conducted a total of 12 web searches across Google, Yahoo, and Bing to identify websites related to HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer. The QUality Evaluation Scoring Tool (QUEST) was used to measure quality based on seven website criteria. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) were used to measure readability, with scores estimating the education level a reader would require to understand a piece of text. Readability improves as FRES increases and FKGL decreases. Results Twenty‐seven unique web pages were evaluated. The mean USA reading grade level as measured by FKGL was 10.42 (standard deviation = 1.54). There was an inverse relationship between quality and readability, with a significant positive correlation between QUEST score and FKGL (r = 0.343, P = .040) and a significant negative correlation between QUEST score and FRES (r = −0.537, P = .002). Conclusions With a mean USA reading grade level more than four grades above the American Medical Association's recommendation and results indicating that readability suffers as quality improves, these findings suggest that the currently available online information about HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer is insufficient. Improved patient education practices and resources about this diagnosis are needed. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 131:87–94, 2021

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Four readability scales, each of which uses different techniques, were used to evaluate the readability of the websites: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE). These scales have been used in many readability evaluation studies of health websites on various topics and are reliable [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53], and NIH recommends using FKGL, Gunning Fog, and SMOG for readability evaluations [54].…”

Section: Readability Evaluation Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health websites on COVID-19: are they readable and credible enough to help public self-care?

Valizadeh-Haghi

Khazaal

Rahmatizadeh

2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: There are concerns about nonscientific and/or unclear information on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that is available on the Internet. Furthermore, people’s ability to understand health information varies and depends on their skills in reading and interpreting information. This study aims to evaluate the readability and creditability of websites with COVID-19-related information.Methods: The search terms “coronavirus,” “COVID,” and “COVID-19” were input into Google. The websites of the first thirty results for each search term were evaluated in terms of their credibility and readability using the Health On the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE) scales, respectively.Results: The readability of COVID-19-related health information on websites was suitable for high school graduates or college students and, thus, was far above the recommended readability level. Most websites that were examined (87.2%) had not been officially certified by HONcode. There was no significant difference in the readability scores of websites with and without HONcode certification.Conclusion: These results suggest that organizations should improve the readability of their websites and provide information that more people can understand. This could lead to greater health literacy, less health anxiety, and the provision of better preventive information about the disease.

show abstract

“…The readability and quality of medical information available on the Internet related to the topics of glue ear, aural atresia, tympanostomy tubes, vascular anomalies, and tonsillectomy for sleep apnea have been assessed. [14][15][16][17][18] However, the readability and quality of Internet medical information about ankyloglossia, breastfeeding, and frenulectomy have not been formally assessed. There also are no data on what type of information is most readily available via Internet search and who is writing that information.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality, Readability, and Trends for Websites on Ankyloglossia

Aaronson

Castaño

Simons

et al. 2018

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea

Cited by 38 publications

References 8 publications

Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer

Quality and Readability Assessment of Websites on Human Papillomavirus and Oropharyngeal Cancer

Health websites on COVID-19: are they readable and credible enough to help public self-care?

Quality, Readability, and Trends for Websites on Ankyloglossia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About