Original Articles
13 September 2022
Vol. 74 No. 2 (2022)
Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
1446
Views
721
Downloads
Authors
There are concerns over the reliability and comprehensibility of health-related information on the internet. The goal of our research was to analyze the readability, reliability, and quality of information obtained from websites associated with Behçet’s disease (BD). On September 20, 2021, the term BD was used to perform a search on Google, and 100 eligible websites were identified. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog (GFOG) were used to evaluate the readability of the website. The JAMA score was used to assess the websites’ reliability, the DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) were used to assess quality, and Alexa was used to analyze their popularity. Sections of the text were evaluated, and the results revealed that the mean FRES was 35.49±14.42 (difficult) and the mean GFOG was 14.93±3.13 years (very difficult). According to the JAMA scores, 36% of the websites had a high reliability rating and 20% adhered to the HONcode. The readability was found to significantly differ from the reliability of the websites (p<0.05). Moreover, websites with scientific content were found to have higher readability and reliability (p<0.05). The readability of BD-related information on the Internet was found to be considerably higher than that recommended by the National Health Institute’s Grade 6, with moderate reliability and good quality. We believe that online information should have some level of readability and must have reliable content that is appropriate to educate the public, particularly for websites that provide with patient education material.
Altmetrics
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Citations
Hatemi G, Seyahi E, Fresko I, et al. One year in review 2020: Behçet’s syndrome. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2020; 127: 3-10.
Davatchi F, Chams-Davatchi C, Shams H, et al. Behçet’s disease: epidemiology, clinical manifestations, and diagnosis. Exp Rev Clin Immunol. 2017; 13: 57-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2016.1205486
Chen J, Yao X. A contemporary review of Behçet’s syndrome. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 2021 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12016-021-08864-3
Yeh TK, Yeh J. Chest pain in pediatrics. Pediatr Ann. 2015; 44: e274-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/00904481-20151110-01
Murray KE, Murray TE, O’Rourke AC, et al. Readability and quality of online information on osteoarthritis: an objective analysis with historic comparison. Interact J Med Res. 2019; 8: e12855.
Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, et al. Access to care and use of the Internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res. 2015; 17: e106. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4126
Scott BB, Johnson AR, Doval AF, et al. Readability and understandability analysis of online materials related to abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2020; 54: 111-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1538574419879855
Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997; 277: 1244-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.277.15.1244
AlKhalili R, Shukla PA, Patel RH, et al. Readability assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to mammography for breast cancer screening. Acad Radiol. 2015; 22: 290-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2014.10.009
Crawford-Manning F, Greenall C, Hawarden A, et al. Evaluation of quality and readability of online patient information on osteoporosis and osteoporosis drug treatment and recommendations for improvement. Osteoporos Int. 2021; 32: 1567-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05800-7
Wang Q, Xie L, Wang L, et al. Readability in printed education materials for Chinese patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a mixed-method design. BMJ Open. 2020; 10: e038091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038091
Siddhanamatha HR, Heung E, Lopez-Olivo M, et al. Quality assessment of websites providing educational content for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Semin Arthrit Rheum. 2017; 46: 715-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2017.01.006
Vivekanantham A, Protheroe J, Muller S, Hider S. Evaluating on-line health information for patients with polymyalgia rheumatica: a descriptive study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017; 18: 43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1416-5
Statista. Available from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines/ Accessed: 01 April 2022.
Basavakumar D, Flegg M, Eccles J, Ghezzi P. Accuracy, completeness and accessibility of online information on fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Int. 2019; 39: 735-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04265-0
Arif N, Ghezzi P. Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast. 2018; 37: 6-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.004
Eysenbach G, Köhler C. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. BMJ. 2002; 324: 573-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573
Boztas N, Omur D, Ozbılgın S, et al. Readability of internet-sourced patient education material related to “labour analgesia”. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96: e8526. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000008526
Zeldman J. Taking your talent to the web: a guide for the transitioning designer. Indianapolis: New Riders; 2001.
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53: 105-11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
Weil AG, Bojanowski MW, Jamart J, et al. Evaluation of the quality of information on the Internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg. 2014; 82: e31-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2012.11.003
Boyer C, Selby M, Appel RD. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health web sites. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998; 52: 1163-6.
Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011; 169: 53-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4414/smi.26.00233
Walsh TM, Volsko TA. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care. 2008; 53: 1310-5.
Garfinkle R, Wong-Chong N, Petrucci A, et al. Assessing the readability, quality and accuracy of online health information for patients with low anterior resection syndrome following surgery for rectal cancer. Colorectal Dis. 2019; 21: 523-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14548
Calo WA, Gilkey MB, Malo TL, et al. A content analysis of HPV vaccination messages available online. Vaccine. 2018; 36: 7525-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2018.10.053
Sheats MK, Royal K, Kedrowicz A. Using readability software to enhance the health literacy of equine veterinary clients: an analysis of 17 American Association of Equine Practitioners’ newsletter and website articles. Equine Vet J. 2019; 51: 552-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/evj.13042
Huang G, Fang CH, Agarwal N, et al. Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133: 449-54.
Yılmaz FH, Tutar MS, Arslan D, Çeri A. Readability, understandability, and quality of retinopathy of prematurity information on the web. Birth Defects Res. 2021; 113: 901-10.
Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC. Untangling the Web--the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns. 2007; 68: 218-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2007.05.016
Barajas-Gamboa JS, Klingler M, Landreneau J, et al. Quality of information about bariatric surgery on the Internet: a two-continent comparison of website content. Obes Surg. 2020; 30: 1736-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11695-019-04375-5
Washington TA, Fanciullo GJ, Sorensen JA, Baird JC. Quality of chronic pain websites. Pain Med. 2008; 9: 994-1000. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-4637.2008.00419.x
Murray KE, Murray TE, O’Rourke AC, et al. Readability and quality of online information on osteoarthritis: an objective analysis with historic comparison. Interact J Med Res. 2019; 8: e12855. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/12855
Huang G, Fang CH, Agarwal N, et al. Assessment of online patient education materials from major ophthalmologic associations. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2015; 133: 449-54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.6104
Daraz L, Morrow AS, Ponce OJ, et al. Readability of online health information: a meta-narrative systematic review. Am J Med Qual. 2018; 33: 487-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860617751639
Eysenbach G, Kohler Ch. What is the prevalence of health-related searches on the World Wide Web? Qualitative and quantitative analysis of search engine queries on the internet. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003; 2003: 225-9.
Lee RJ, O’Neill DC, Brassil M, et al. Pelvic vein embolization: an assessment of the readability and quality of online information for patients. CVIR Endovasc 2020; 3: 52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42155-020-00143-0
Kocyigit BF, Koca TT, Akaltun MS. Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019; 38: 3269-74.
Kocyigit BF, Koca TT, Akaltun MS. Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019; 38: 3269-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-019-04706-y
Yurdakul OV, Kilicoglu MS, Bagcier F. Evaluating the reliability and readability of online information on osteoporosis. Arch Endocrinol Metab. 2021; 65: 85-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20945/2359-3997000000311
Reynolds M, Hoi A, Buchanan RRC. Assessing the quality, reliability and readability of online health information regarding systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus. 2018; 27: 1911-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0961203318793213
Chumber S, Huber J, Ghezzi P. A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Educ. 2015; 41: 95-105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714560772
Willen RD, Pipitone O, Daudfar S, Jones JD. Comparing quality and readability of online English language information to patient use and perspectives for common rheumatologic conditions. Rheumatol Int. 2020; 40: 2097-103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-020-04664-8
Fisher JH, O’Connor D, Flexman AM, Shapera S, Ryerson CJ. Accuracy and reliability of internet resources for information on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016; 194: 218-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201512-2393OC
Yılmaz FH, Tutar MS, Arslan D, Çeri A. Readability, understandability, and quality of retinopathy of prematurity information on the web. Birth Defects Res. 2021; 113: 901-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1883
Arslan D, Sami Tutar M, Kozanhan B, Bagci Z. The quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online educational materials for heart murmur. Cardiol Young. 2020; 30: 328-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S104795111900307X
How to Cite
Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online information on Behçet’s disease. (2022). Reumatismo, 74(2). https://doi.org/10.4081/reumatismo.2022.1495
Copyright (c) 2022 the Author(s)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.
