Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Resources for Plantar Fasciitis

Lim, Sean-Tee; O'Neill, Shane C; DʼSouza, Lester

doi:10.1053/j.jfas.2021.02.014

Cited by 12 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, with interactive and communication technologies now emerging, the internet has become one of the main health information resources for adolescents 71. Internet content is not regulated, and the information that is available varies enormously in quality, leading to confusion and misinformation 72 73. The studies included in this review did not present data on digital HL specifically.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health literacy and musculoskeletal disorders in adolescents: a scoping review

Veshovda,

Eik,

Andersen

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesHealth literacy (HL) related to musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) in adolescents is a field with limited previous evidence. This study aimed to review and synthesise studies on MSDs and HL as well as various dimensions of HL in adolescents.DesignScoping review in accordance with Arksey and O’Malleys framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.Search strategyThe search strategy was performed in the following databases in November 2021 (initial search) and December 2022 (updated search); Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL, ERIC, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Eligible studies involving MSDs and HL or either of the HL dimensions related to finding, understanding, appraising or applying health information in adolescents were considered. Any dimension of HL studied, the outcome measure(s) used to assess HL and the type of MSD examined were charted, reviewed and synthesised. A directed content analysis was used for the subjective interpretation of text data.ResultsA total of 16 841 studies were identified and 33 were eligible for inclusion. Ten articles presented HL with a definition or description in the theoretical background. The remaining 23 studies involved finding, understanding, appraising or applying health information, without using the term ‘health literacy’. Most of the studies addressed how adolescentsunderstand(n=32), andapply(n=23) health information, while few studies focused on how theyfind(n=11) andappraise(n=7) musculoskeletal health information.ConclusionFew studies have addressed HL and MSDs in adolescents explicitly, while most studies have considered dimensions of HL. Our findings suggest that there is important work to be done to align conceptual understandings with the measurement of HL in adolescents and that further research should be carried out to explore how HL is distributed among adolescents with MSDs and how adolescents living with MSDs report their HL.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health literacy and musculoskeletal disorders in adolescents: a scoping review

Veshovda,

Eik,

Andersen

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…F. Garcia et al, 2010;Georgsson & Carlsson, 2022;Ghodasra et al, 2018;Gollapalli et al, 2022;Griffin et al, 2003;Griffin et al, 2006;Grose et al, 2022;Guan et al, 2018;Guitton, 2015;Gulbrandsen et al, 2022;Habeeb, 2021;Handler et al, 2021;Hansberry et al, 2015;Hansberry et al, 2018;Hansberry, John, et al, 2014;Harris et al, 2018;Hill-Briggs et al, 2012;Hoang & van Courtney, 2022;Hosseinzadeh et al, 2021;Hunter et al, 2012;Iacovetto et al, 2014;Irwin et al, 2021;Johnson et al, 2016;Joseph et al, 2020;Kapoor et al, 2017;Kasabwala et al, 2012;Kasabwala et al, 2013;Kecojevic et al, 2020;Kelly et al, 2016;Khazaal et al, 2008;Khurana et al, 2003;Kim et al, 2022;Kirkpatrick & Mohler, 1999;Koo & Yap, 2017;Krass et al, 2002;Kruse et al, 2021;Lake et al, 2007;Lamb et al, 2022;Lavin et al, 2022;K. C. Lee et al, 2019;Lim et al, 2021;…”

Section: Acknowledgementsunclassified

“…C. Lee et al, 2019;Lim et al, 2021;Langbecker & Janda, 2012;Lipari et al, 2019;Liu et al, 2014;Louw et al, 2013;Luk et al, 2010;Luk & Aslani, 2011;Mac et al, 2020;Macdonald et al, 2010;Magrath et al, 2022;Manchaiah et al, 2020;Mani et al, 2021;Martin et al, 2022;McBride et al, 2017;McEnteggart et al, 2015;Meade & Dreyer, 2022;Mehta et al, 2018;Miguens-Vila et al, 2018;Mikhail et al, 2015;Miles et al, 2020;Miles et al, 2021;Mira et al, 2013;Murphy et al, Pearson et al, 2022;Phillips et al, 2015;Piredda et al, 2016;Pires & Cavaco, 2014;Pothier et al, 2008;Powell et al, 2021;Prabhu et al, 2016;Prieto et al, 2020;Protheroe et al, 2015;Raeis, 2006;Rai et al, 2021;Rayess et al, 2017;Redfern et al, 2006;Rhee et al, 2013;Robb et al, 2019;Robinson & Schumacher, 2013;Rooney et al, 2020;Rosenberg et al, 2016;…”

Section: Acknowledgementsunclassified

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Ahmadzadeh

Bahrami

Zare–Farashbandi

et al. 2023

Health Info Libraries J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Patient education information material (PEIM) is an essential component of patient education programs in increasing patients' ability to cope with their diseases. Therefore, it is essential to consider the criteria that will be used to prepare and evaluate these resources.Objective: This paper aims to identify these criteria and recognize the tools or methods used to evaluate them.Methods: National and international databases and indexing banks, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Magiran, SID and ISC, were searched for this review. Original or review articles, theses, short surveys, and conference papers published between January 1990 and June 2022 were included.Results: Overall, 4688 documents were retrieved, of which 298 documents met the inclusion criteria. The criteria were grouped into 24 overarching criteria. The most frequently used criteria were readability, quality, suitability, comprehensibility and understandability. Conclusion: This review has provided empirical evidence to identify criteria, tools, techniques or methods for developing or evaluating a PEIM. The authors suggest that developing a comprehensive tool based on these findings is critical for evaluating the overall efficiency of PEIM using effective criteria.

show abstract

“…Unfortunately, it has been shown that the majority of online PEMs written about various orthopaedic conditions fail to satisfy the AMA and NIH readability standards. 3 , 7 , 26 Readability analysis of PEMs regarding ankle arthroplasty, 13 , 30 ankle instability, 1 , 29 ankle fusion, 16 and other various foot and ankle conditions 2 , 14 , 20 demonstrates that, similar to orthopaedics as a whole, the majority of online foot and ankle PEMs are written at a reading grade level above the national recommendations. This study seeks to evaluate the quality and readability of information presented in the most popular online resources regarding ankle fractures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of the Most Popular Online Ankle Fracture–Related Patient Education Materials

Arif,

LeBrun,

Moore

et al. 2024

Foot & Ankle Orthopaedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Given the increasing accessibility of Internet access, it is critical to ensure that the informational material available online for patient education is both accurate and readable to promote a greater degree of health literacy. This study sought to investigate the quality and readability of the most popular online resources for ankle fractures. Methods: After conducting a Google search using 6 terms related to ankle fractures, we collected the first 20 nonsponsored results for each term. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI) instruments. Quality was evaluated using custom created Ankle Fracture Index (AFI). Results: A total of 46 of 120 articles met the inclusion criteria. The mean FKGL, FRE, and GFI scores were 8.4 ± 0.5, 57.5 ± 3.2, and 10.5 ± 0.5, respectively. The average AFI score was 15.4 ± 1.4, corresponding to an “acceptable” quality rating. Almost 70% of articles (n = 32) were written at or below the recommended eighth-grade reading level. Most articles discussed the need for imaging in diagnosis and treatment planning while neglecting to discuss the risks of surgery or potential future operations. Conclusion: We found that online patient-facing materials on ankle fractures demonstrated an eighth-grade average reading grade level and an acceptable quality on content analysis. Further work should surround increasing information regarding risk factors, complications for surgery, and long-term recovery while ensuring that readability levels remain below at least the eighth-grade level.

show abstract

Assessing the Quality and Readability of Online Resources for Plantar Fasciitis

Cited by 12 publications

References 23 publications

Health literacy and musculoskeletal disorders in adolescents: a scoping review

Health literacy and musculoskeletal disorders in adolescents: a scoping review

Patient education information material assessment criteria: A scoping review

Analysis of the Most Popular Online Ankle Fracture–Related Patient Education Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About