Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-covid pain

Abstract

Background The use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to “post-COVID-19 pain.” Methods One-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms “post-COVID-19 pain” and “pain after COVID-19” using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively. Results Upon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002). Conclusion The readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.

How readable and quality are online patient education materials about Helicobacter pylori?: Assessment of the readability, quality and reliability

“…After the search, the uniform resource locators (URLs) of the top 150 websites that the Google search engine provided for the term used in this study were recorded according to the methodologies described in similar studies. [7,8,11,13,15,16] The ten websites included in the previous study methodologies, ranked on the first page of the Google search engine, were evaluated as the most viewed websites. [7,11,17]…”

“…In previous studies, the reliability and quality of the information contained in Internet PEMs, as well as readability, have been extensively studied. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] However, there are no studies evaluating the readability, quality, and content of Internet-based PEMs on a subject such as H pylori, which has a significant impact on public health.…”

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on transcutaneuous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

“…Accordingly, a score of 5 indicates excellent quality, whereas a score of 1 indicates poor quality. [ 13 ] (Table 1 ). The GQS and quality of websites were as follows: 4–5, high quality; 3, medium quality; and 1–2, low quality.…”

“…In addition to readability, the reliability and quality of information in the digital environment have been extensively studied in the literature. [ 12 , 13 ]…”

“…In addition to readability, the reliability and quality of information in the digital environment have been extensively studied in the literature. [12,13] Patients may receive information about device features and usage method related to TENS on the internet. TENS is frequently recommended by health professionals for treating acute and chronic pain and is available without a prescription.…”