Quality of online information about sexually transmitted diseases

Fong, Pedro; Tong, Henry H.Y.; Cheong, Hio-Lam; Choi, Ka-Hou; Ieong, Ka-Kei; Lam, Lo-Ka; Wong, Chi-Man; Wong, Sin-Wa

doi:10.1108/oir-03-2014-0054

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best performing readability score found only 37% of webpages readable to a universal audience, this does not reflect well for the health information produced and disseminated online. Similar studies of quality and readability of online health information also often report poor readability levels including in vascular surgery [20], respiratory medicine [11], and genitourinary medicine [21]. This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin. Methods The Google® search engine was used to collate the first 20 webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p < 0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The best performing readability score found only 37% of webpages readable to a universal audience, this does not re ect well for the health information produced and disseminated online. Similar studies of quality and readability of online health information also often report poor readability levels including in vascular surgery 20 , respiratory medicine 11 , and genitourinary medicine 21 . This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations 6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Readability of Online COVID-19 Health Information: A Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Worrall

Connolly

O’Neill

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first twenty webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p <0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Worrall

Connolly

O’Neill

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first twenty webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p <0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

show abstract

Quality of online information about sexually transmitted diseases

Cited by 4 publications

References 17 publications

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

Readability of Online COVID-19 Health Information: A Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About