Quality of Web-based Information for the 10 Most Common Fractures

Abstract

BackgroundIn today's technologically advanced world, 75% of patients have used Google to search for health information. As a result, health care professionals fear that patients may be misinformed. Currently, there is a paucity of data on the quality and readability of Web-based health information on fractures.ObjectivesIn this study, we assessed the quality and readability of Web-based health information related to the 10 most common fractures.MethodsUsing the Google search engine, we assessed websites from the first results page for the 10 most common fractures using lay search terms. Website quality was measured using the DISCERN instrument, which scores websites as very poor (15-22.5), poor (22.5-37.5), fair (37.5-52.5), good (52.5-67.5), or excellent (67.5-75). The presence of Health on the Net code (HONcode) certification was assessed for all websites. Website readability was measured using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (0-100), where 60-69 is ideal for the general public, and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL; −3.4 to ∞), where the mean FKGL of the US adult population is 8.ResultsOverall, website quality was “fair” for all fractures, with a mean (standard deviation) DISCERN score of 50.3 (5.8). The DISCERN score correlated positively with a higher website position on the search results page (r2=0.1, P=.002) and with HONcode certification (P=.007). The mean (standard deviation) Flesch Reading Ease Score and FKGL for all fractures were 62.2 (9.1) and 6.7 (1.6), respectively.ConclusionThe quality of Web-based health information on fracture care is fair, and its readability is appropriate for the general public. To obtain higher quality information, patients should select HONcode-certified websites. Furthermore, patients should select websites that are positioned higher on the results page because the Google ranking algorithms appear to rank the websites by quality.

Evaluation of the quality and health literacy demand of online renal diet information

“…Despite this, we consider the nature of the searches that we conducted to be comprehensive. We did not specifically exclude commercial organisations or other patient support organisations like previous content analysis studies . This is because information from these sites may be used to inform the decisions and change the dietary or health behaviours of people with kidney disease and, as shown in the present study, information from these sources makes up a substantial portion of the information to be found.…”

Quality, Trustworthiness, Readability, and Accuracy of Medical Information Regarding Common Pediatric Emergency Medicine-Related Complaints on the Web

“…Readability was analyzed using the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Index (FOG), Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score for each website (11)(12)(13)(14). All informational text from each website excluding authors, advertisements, links, pictures, copyright notices, disclaimers, acknowledgements, citations, and videos was entered into an online tool to calculate scores (10).…”

“…Each analyzes text in a different manner: FKGLsentence length and syllables, SMOG-complex word density, FOG-sentence numbers/length and complexity, CLIcharacters per word and words/sentence. Calculations for each of these measures are listed in Table 1 (11)(12)(13)(14).…”

Evaluating Palliative Care Resources Available to the Public Using the Internet and Social Media

“…11 In response to this increase of health-related searches, researchers have explored the most commonly viewed websites to evaluate the quality of the information delivered to the public. Previous studies addressing health information available to the public limited data collection to the top 10 search results [12][13][14][15] because data suggest 92% of Internet browsers only view these first 10 websites. 16,17 Among Internet users, Google and YouTube are the most popular resources for users searching for medical information.…”