Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis.
ABSTRACT: Recurrent 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.Quality and readability assessment of online information.Relevant 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.Fifty-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.The quality and readability of English websites about RRP is alarmingly poor.NA. Laryngoscope, 127:2293-2297, 2017.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the quality of information included in websites aimed at the public on COVID-19. METHODS:Yahoo!, Google and Bing search engines were browsed using selected keywords on COVID-19. The first 100 websites from each search engine for each keyword were evaluated. Validated tools were used to assess readability [Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES)], usability and reliability (LIDA tool) and quality (DISCERN instrument). Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analyses. RESULTS:Eighty-four eligible sites were analysed. The median FRES score was 54.2 (range: 23.2-73.5). The median LIDA usability and reliability scores were 46 (range: 18-54) and 37(range:14-51), respectively. A low (<50 %) overall LIDA score was recorded for 30.9 % (n?=?26) of the websites. The median DISCERN score was 49.5 (range: 21-77). The DISCERN score of ?50 % was found in 45 (53.6 %) websites. The DISCERN score was significantly associated with LIDA usability and reliability scores (p?<?0.001) and the FRES score (p?=?0.024). CONCLUSION:The majority of websites on COVID-19 for the public had moderate to low scores with regards to readability, usability, reliability and quality. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS:Prompt strategies should be implemented to standardize online health information on COVID-19 during this pandemic to ensure the general public has access to good quality reliable information.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Osteoarthritis (OA) is the most common cause of disability in people older than 65 years. Readability of online OA information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online OA information to be poor. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review the readability and quality of current online information regarding OA. METHODS:The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analyzed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons), and nontext pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Gunning-Fog Index. Website quality was scored using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and the DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification, age of content, content producer, and author characteristics were noted. RESULTS:A total of 37 unique websites were found suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7th to 8th grade level. Of the 37, 1 (2.7%) website met all 4 JAMA criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was "fair," compared with the "poor" grading of a 2003 study. HONcode-endorsed websites (43%, 16/37) were of a statistically significant higher quality. CONCLUSIONS:Readability of online health information for OA was either equal to or more difficult than the recommended level.
Project description:Supplementary data for the article <b>Osteotomy around the Knee: Assessment of Quality, Content and Readability of Online Information</b> is provided. 45 unique websites were evaluated. The DISCERN score, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) benchmark criteria and HONcode (Health On the Net) criteria are provided for reference. Readability of online information was analysed with Readability Studio Professional Edition, Version 2019 (Oleander Software Ltd.). The software assessed readability using eight different instruments: Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Raygor Estimate, SMOG, Coleman- Liau, Fry, FORCAST and Gunning Fog. Data is also provided on the percentage of complex words, long words, Dale-Chall unfamiliar words, Fog words, as well as the number of 'wordy' items, overly long sentences and longest sentence length.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients diagnosed with melanoma frequently search the internet for treatment information, including novel and complex immunotherapy. However, health literacy is limited among half of the German population, and no assessment of websites on melanoma treatment has been performed so far. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to identify and assess the most visible websites in German language on melanoma immunotherapy. METHODS:In accordance with the common Web-based information-seeking behavior of patients with cancer, the first 20 hits on Google, Yahoo, and Bing were searched for combinations of German synonyms for "melanoma" and "immunotherapy" in July 2017. Websites that met our predefined eligibility criteria were considered for assessment. Three reviewers independently assessed their quality by using the established DISCERN tool and by checking the presence of quality certification. Usability and reliability were evaluated by the LIDA tool and understandability by the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was calculated to estimate the readability. The ALEXA and SISTRIX tools were used to investigate the websites' popularity and visibility. The interrater agreement was determined by calculating Cronbach alpha. Subgroup differences were identified by t test, U test, or one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS:Of 480 hits, 45 single websites from 30 domains were assessed. Only 2 website domains displayed a German quality certification. The average assessment scores, mean (SD), were as follows: DISCERN, 48 (7.6); LIDA (usability), 40 (2.0); LIDA (reliability), 10 (1.6); PEMAT, 69% (16%); and FRES, 17 (14), indicating mediocre quality, good usability, and understandability but low reliability and an even very low readability of the included individual websites. SISTRIX scores ranged from 0 to 6872 and ALEXA scores ranged from 17 to 192,675, indicating heterogeneity of the visibility and popularity of German website domains providing information on melanoma immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS:Optimization of the most accessible German websites on melanoma immunotherapy is desirable. Especially, simplification of the readability of information and further adaption to reliability criteria are required to support the education of patients with melanoma and laypersons, and to enhance transparency.
Project description:Background Patients living with fibromyalgia strongly prefer to access health information on the web. However, the majority of subjects in previous studies strongly expressed their concerns about the quality of online information resources. Objectives The purpose of this study was to evaluate existing online fibromyalgia information resources for content, quality and readability by using standardised quality and readability tools. Methods The first 25 websites were identified using Google and the search keyword 'fibromyalgia'. Pairs of raters independently evaluated website quality using two structured tools (DISCERN and a quality checklist). Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score maps. Results Ranking of the websites' quality varied by the tool used, although there was general agreement about the top three websites (Fibromyalgia Information, Fibromyalgia Information Foundation and National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases). Content analysis indicated that 72% of websites provided information on treatment options, 68% on symptoms, 60% on diagnosis and 40% on coping and resources. DISCERN ratings classified 32% websites as 'very good', 32% as 'good and 36% as 'marginal'. The mean overall DISCERN score was 36.88 (good). Only 16% of websites met the recommended literacy level grade of 6-8 (range 7-15). Conclusion Higher quality websites tended to be less readable. Online fibromyalgia information resources do not provide comprehensive information about fibromyalgia, and have low quality and poor readability. While information is very important for those living with fibromyalgia, current resources are unlikely to provide necessary or accurate information, and may not be usable for most people.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Currently, the Internet seems to be a helpful tool for obtaining information about everything that we think about, including diseases, their prevention and treatment approaches. However, doubts exist regarding the quality and readability of such information. This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic information on periodontal disease.<h4>Methods</h4>In this infodemiological study, the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines were searched using specific Arabic terms on periodontal disease. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The eligible websites were categorized as commercial, health/professional, journalism, and other. The following tools were applied to assess the quality of the information on the included websites: the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN tool. The readability was assessed using an online readability tool.<h4>Results</h4>Of the 300 websites, 89 were eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only two websites (2.3%) were HONcode certified. Based on the DISCERN tool, 43 (48.3%) websites had low scores. The mean score of the JAMA benchmarks was 1.6?±?1.0, but only 3 (3.4%) websites achieved "yes" responses for all four JAMA criteria. Based on the DISCERN tool, health/professional websites revealed the highest quality of information compared to other website categories. Most of the health/professional websites revealed moderate-quality information, while 55% of the commercial websites, 66% of journalism websites, and 43% of other websites showed poor quality information. Regarding readability, most of the analyzed websites presented simple and readable written content.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Aside from readable content, Arabic health information on the analyzed websites on periodontal disease is below the required level of quality.
Project description:Firefighters appear at an increased risk for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Because of PTSD-related stigma, firefighters may search for information online. The current study evaluated the quality, readability, and completeness of PTSD online resources, and to determine how the online treatment recommendations align with current evidence. Google.ca (Canada) searches were performed using four phrases: 'firefighter PTSD', 'firefighter operational stress', 'PTSD symptoms', and 'PTSD treatment'. The 75 websites identified were assessed using quality criteria for consumer health information (DISCERN), readability and health literacy statistics, content analysis, and a comparison of treatments mentioned to the current best evidence. The average DISCERN score was 43.8 out of 75 (indicating 'fair' quality), with 9 'poor' websites (16-30), 31 'fair' websites (31-45), 26 "good" websites (46-60), and nine excellent websites (61-75). The average grade level required to understand the health-related content was 10.6. The most mentioned content was PTSD symptoms (48/75 websites) and PTSD treatments (60/75 websites). The most frequently mentioned treatments were medications (41/75 websites) and cognitive behavioural therapy (40/75 websites). Cognitive behavioural therapy is supported by strong evidence, but evidence for medications appears inconsistent in current systematic reviews. Online PTSD resources exist for firefighters, but the information is challenging to read and lacks evidence-based treatment recommendations.
Project description:<b>Background:</b> Patients frequently consult the internet for health information. Our aim was to perform an Internet-based readability and quality control study using recognised quality scoring systems to assess the patient information available online relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement surgery. <b>Methods:</b> Online patient information relating to anaesthesia for total hip and knee replacement was identified using Google, Bing and Yahoo with search terms <i>'hip replacement anaesthetic'</i>, <i>'knee replacement anaesthetic</i>.' Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Quality was assessed using DISCERN instrument, Health On the Net Foundation seal, and Information Standard mark. <b>Results:</b> 32 websites were analysed. 25% were HONcode certified, 15.6% had the Information Standard. Mean FRE was 55.2±12.8. Mean FKGL was 8.6±1.9. Six websites (18.8%) had the recommended 6 <sup>th</sup>-grade readability level. Mean of 10.4±2.6 years of formal education was required to read the websites. Websites with Information Standard were easier to read: FKGL (6.2 vs. 9, <i>P < 0.001</i>), GFI (8.8 vs. 10.7, <i>P = 0.04</i>), FRE score (64.2 vs. 9, <i>P = 0.02</i>). Mean DISCERN score was low: 40.3 ± 13. <b>Conclusions:</b> Overall, most websites were poor quality with reading levels too high for the target audience. Information Standard NHS quality mark was associated with improved readability, however along with HONcode were not found to have a statistically significant correlation with quality. Based on this study, we would encourage healthcare professionals to be judicious in the websites they recommend to patients, and to consider both the readability and quality of the information provided.
Project description:Background:Although numerous websites for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are available, little is known about their content and quality. Objective:To evaluate the quality of CKD websites, and the degree to which they align with information needs identified by patients with CKD. Methods:We identified websites by entering "chronic kidney disease" in 3 search engines: Google.com (with regional variants for Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States), Bing.com, and Yahoo.com. We included the first 50 unique English-language sites from each search. We evaluated website content using a 30-point scale comprising 8 priority content domains identified by patients with CKD (understanding CKD, diet, symptoms, medications, mental/physical health, finances, travel, and work/school). We used standardized tools to evaluate usability, reliability, and readability (DISCERN, HONcode, LIDA, Reading Ease, and Reading Grade Level). Two reviewers independently conducted the search, screen, and evaluation. Results:Of the 2093 websites identified, 115 were included. Overall, sites covered a mean (SD) of 29% (17.8) of the CKD content areas. The proportion of sites covering content related to understanding CKD, symptoms, and diet was highest (97%, 80%, and 72%, respectively). The proportion of sites covering travel, finances, and work/school content was lowest (22%, 12%, and 12%, respectively). The mean (SD) scores for DISCERN, LIDA and HONcode were 68% (14.6), 71% (14.4), and 75% (17.2), respectively, considered above average for usability and reliability. The mean (SD) Reading Grade Level was 10.6 (2.8) and Reading Ease was 49.8 (14.4), suggesting poor readability. Conclusions:Although many CKD web sites were of reasonable quality, their readability was poor. Furthermore, most sites covered less than 30% of the content patients identified as important for CKD self-management. These results will inform content gaps in internet-accessible information on CKD self-management that should be addressed by future eHealth web-based tools.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the content, quality and readability of websites with information on fibromyalgia in Spanish. METHODS:Websites were retrieved entering the keyword 'fibromyalgia' in Google, Yahoo! and Bing, and by searching records of patients associations in Spain and Latin America. The Bermúdez-Tamayo and DISCERN questionnaires were employed for evaluating quality and content, and INFLESZ for readability. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSSV.24 (Chicago, USA). RESULTS:Three hundred and five websites were found. After applying the exclusion criteria, 73 websites were analysed. Websites retrieved by search engines obtained median scores of 27.0 (interquartile interval (IQI): 24.5-32.0) with DISCERN, 35.0 (IQI: 31.0-40.5) with Bermúdez-Tamayo and 53.7 (IQI: 47.4-56.2) with INFLESZ, whereas those from patients associations scored 21.0 (IQI: 19.2-23.8), 26.0 (IQI: 25.0-31.0) and 51.7 (IQI: 47.9-55.1), respectively. In general, content was not up-to-date. CONCLUSIONS:Overall quality was medium-low, content quality was very low and readability was poor. Further effort is needed to guarantee meeting quality criteria and accessing updated, relevant, and legible information.This study exposes the quality and readability of websites on fibromyalgia in Spanish, which can help healthcare workers to better appraise this resource and its potential influence on the development of the pathology.