Arteriovenous Fistula for dialysis – Let's Google it. Readability and quality of online information

Bresler, Richard; Lynch, N.; Connolly, Maureen; Keelan, Stephen; Richter, Louis; McHugh, Seamus; Naughton, Peter

doi:10.1016/j.surge.2020.02.009

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best performing readability score found only 37% of webpages readable to a universal audience, this does not reflect well for the health information produced and disseminated online. Similar studies of quality and readability of online health information also often report poor readability levels including in vascular surgery [20], respiratory medicine [11], and genitourinary medicine [21]. This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations [6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin. Methods The Google® search engine was used to collate the first 20 webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p < 0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The best performing readability score found only 37% of webpages readable to a universal audience, this does not re ect well for the health information produced and disseminated online. Similar studies of quality and readability of online health information also often report poor readability levels including in vascular surgery 20 , respiratory medicine 11 , and genitourinary medicine 21 . This poor readability level affects understanding of the health information; resulting in poor adherence to hygiene measures, social-distancing measures, and further public health recommendations 6 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Worrall

Connolly

O’Neill

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first twenty webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p <0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

show abstract

“…Research has indicated that online medical information pertaining to stomas, breast reconstruction post-mastectomy, carotid endarterectomies, and arteriovenous fistulas have been shown to be of poor quality and readability ( 7 – 9 ). Over 6.75 million health-related searches are performed each day on Google alone ( 10 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment for Constipation—An Online Search. Readability and Quality of Online Patient Resources

Gollapalli

Bresler

Lynch

et al. 2022

Journal of Patient Experience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the readability and quality of online patient information regarding treatment for constipation in the English language. Methods: By utilizing the Google © website, the keyword “treatment for chronic constipation” was searched. Each webpage was assessed by 2 authors independently for readability using both the Gunning Fog Index (GFI) and the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). The quality of the information produced on each individual website was assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Other parameters that were recorded included the country of origin, the organization type, and whether or not the website was issued a Health on the Net (HoN) certificate. Results: This study identified a mean GFI score of 13.2 and a mean FRES score of 48.9. This result indicates poor overall readability. A mean DISCERN score of 37.9 was produced, indicating an overall weak quality of online information on this topic. This study indicated that parameters such as website organization type and the presence or absence of HoN certification impacted the quality of the information websites on this topic. Conclusion: This study indicated a poor level of quality and readability of online information on the topic of chronic constipation treatment. Further resources should be directed towards improving website readability and quality. Patients may be advised that if they wish to access online information on this topic, websites that display HoN accreditation will likely produce higher quality information.

show abstract

Arteriovenous Fistula for dialysis – Let's Google it. Readability and quality of online information

Cited by 8 publications

References 11 publications

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

Treatment for Constipation—An Online Search. Readability and Quality of Online Patient Resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About