The Quality and Readability of Online Consumer Information About Gynecologic Cancer

Sobota, Aleksandra; Ozakinci, Gözde

doi:10.1097/igc.0000000000000362

Cited by 28 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar to other health-related website analysis studies 17,23,24 , we found that the mean readability level of the 46 heart failure websites (12+ grade reading level) was way above the recommended 7 th grade or below readability level 34 . It should be noted that the two highest reading levels belonged to websites that do not necessarily cater to a lay audience; however, we decided to include these websites since they appeared on the first page of the search results; hence, easily accessible to the lay consumer.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Quality and Health Literacy Demand of Online Heart Failure Information

Cajita¹,

Rodney²,

et al. 2017

J Cardiovasc Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The ubiquity of the Internet is changing the way people obtain their health information. While there is an abundance of heart failure information online, the quality and health literacy demand of these information are still unknown. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and health literacy demand (readability, understandability, and actionability) of the heart failure information found online. Methods Google, Yahoo, Bing, Ask.com, and DuckDuckGo were searched for relevant heart failure websites. Two independent raters then assessed the quality and health literacy demand of the included websites. The quality of the heart failure information was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Readability was assessed using seven established readability tests. Finally, understandability and actionability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Print Materials (PEMAT-P). Results A total of 46 websites were included in this analysis. The overall mean quality rating was 46.0 ± 8.9 and the mean readability score was 12.6 grade reading level. The overall mean understandability score was 56.3% ± 16.2. Finally, the overall mean actionability score was 34.7% ± 28.7. Conclusions The heart failure information found online was of fair quality but required a relatively high health literacy level. Web content authors need to consider not just the quality, but also the health literacy demand of the information found in their websites. This is especially important considering that low health literacy is likely prevalent among the usual audience.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Quality and Health Literacy Demand of Online Heart Failure Information

Cajita¹,

Rodney²,

et al. 2017

J Cardiovasc Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Highly variable website quality has also been shown in previous articles on different types of cancer. 9,24 The readability of websites also varied, with half the websites being difficult to read for people without more than an eighth grade or ninth grade education. However, several websites were easier to read, such as healthcentral.com, umm.edu, and familydoctor.org, suggesting that it is possible to communicate complex health information to lower health literacy populations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, DISCERN does not directly judge the validity of published material [7][8][9][10]. In addition, by excluding certain sites such as news websites and blogs, we systematically excluded information that patients may actually use.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, DISCERN does not directly judge the validity of published material. [7][8][9][10] In addition, by excluding certain sites such as news websites and blogs, we systematically excluded information that patients may actually use. Additionally, we excluded research articles, which may be understandable to some patients and may also be more accurate and evidencebased than more general websites.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This could result in overuse of healthcare resources for very-low-risk symptoms or, worse, underuse of healthcare resources when chest pain is caused by serious conditions, such as acute myocardial infarction or pulmonary embolism. [4][5][6] The content and quality of health information on the Internet has been assessed for prostate, 7 kidney cancer, 8 gynecologic, and neurologic conditions [9][10][11] and found to be highly variable. However, no studies to our knowledge have assessed the content and quality of chest pain websites.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Internet Websites for Chest Pain Symptoms Demonstrate Highly Variable Content and Quality

Joury

Alshathri

Alkhunaizi

et al. 2016

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveRecurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP) is a rare disease for which a limited number of information sources for patients exist. The role of the Internet in the patient–physician relationship is increasing. More and more patients search for online health information, which should be of good quality and easy readable. The study aim was to investigate the quality and readability of English online health information about RRP.Study DesignQuality and readability assessment of online information.MethodsRelevant information was collected using three different search engines and seven different search terms. Quality was assessed with the DISCERN instrument. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and average grade level (AGL) were determined to measure readability of the English websites.ResultsFifty‐one English websites were included. The mean DISCERN score of the websites is 28.1 ± 9.7 (poor quality); the mean FRES is 41.3 ± 14.9 (difficult to read); and the mean AGL is 12.6 ± 2.3.ConclusionThe quality and readability of English websites about RRP is alarmingly poor.Level of EvidenceNA. Laryngoscope, 127:2293–2297, 2017

show abstract

The Quality and Readability of Online Consumer Information About Gynecologic Cancer

Cited by 28 publications

References 20 publications

Quality and Health Literacy Demand of Online Heart Failure Information

Quality and Health Literacy Demand of Online Heart Failure Information

Internet Websites for Chest Pain Symptoms Demonstrate Highly Variable Content and Quality

Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About