Web‐based information on the treatment of oral leukoplakia – quality and readability

Abstract

Objective: To categorise the content and assess the quality and readability of the online information regarding the treatment of oral leukoplakia.Methods: An online search, using the term 'leukoplakia treatment' was carried out on June 8 th 2015 using the Google search engine. The content, quality and readability of the first 100 sites were explored. The quality of the web information was assessed using the following tools, the DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks for website analysis and the HON seal. Readability was assessed via the Flesch Reading Ease Score. Results:The search strategy generated 357,000 sites on the Google search engine. Due to duplicate links, non-operating links and irrelevant links, a total of 47 of the first 100 websites were included in this study. The mean overall rating achieved by included websites using the DISCERN instrument was 2.3.With regard to the JAMA benchmarks, the vast majority of examined websites (95.7%) completely fulfilled the disclosure benchmark and less than 50% of included websites met the three remaining criteria. A mean total readability score of 47.5 was recorded with almost 90% of websites having a readability level ranging from fairly difficult to very difficult. Conclusion:Based on this study the online health information regarding oral leukoplakia has challenging readability with content of questionable accuracy.As patients often search for health information online it would be prudent for clinicians to highlight the caution with which online information should be interpreted.

A systematic method for reviewing and analysing health information on consumer‐oriented websites

“…In a study of postpartum depression, for example, much of the information on websites about this condition was inaccurate or incomplete and pitched at a high level of readability (Moore & Ayers, ; Summers & Logsdon, ). Similar findings have been reported in analyses of websites for conditions as diverse as oral leukoplakia (Wiriyakijja, Fedele, Porter, & Riordain, ), pulmonary fibrosis (Fisher, O'Connor, Flexman, Shapera, & Ryerson, ) and pancreatic cancer (Storino et al., ). Much less visible are website analyses of health problems that frequently fall into the nursing domain, such as managing symptoms of fatigue.…”

“…Exemplary published studies evaluating consumer‐oriented websites also are a source for identifying methods of reviewing websites on health topics (e.g. Fisher et al., ; Moore & Ayers, ; Storino et al., ; Wiriyakijja et al., ).…”

“…for conditions as diverse as oral leukoplakia (Wiriyakijja, Fedele, Porter, & Riordain, 2016), pulmonary fibrosis (Fisher, O'Connor, Flexman, Shapera, & Ryerson, 2016) and pancreatic cancer (Storino et al, 2016). Much less visible are website analyses of health problems that frequently fall into the nursing domain, such as managing symptoms of fatigue.…”

Web-based information on oral dysplasia and precancer of the mouth – Quality and readability

“…Despite the criticism that DISCERN may not comprehensively assess the web content when compared to JAMA benchmarks, a previous study noted its satisfactory internal consistency and inter-rater reliability [42]. The mean of overall rating by DISCERN was at 2.42 out of 5 which is similar to other studies of oral leukoplakia (2.3) [39] and head and neck cancer (2.55) [26]. As with previous studies, questions concerning sources to compile the publication [41] as well as those related to the risks of each treatment, effects of treatment choice on quality of life, and support for shared decision-making [39] had notably low mean scores.…”

“…The results indicate that there is a scarcity of patient-oriented web content of OED as only 36 websites of 900 websites were suitable for patients. Other similar studies had a range 50 to 300 websites in their initial assessment [25,26,[39][40][41]. Only 3 of these websites in this study had content specifically devoted to OED with minimal information content in these 3 OED specific sites.…”