Information quality and dynamics of patients' interactions on tonsillectomy web resources

Abstract

Information technologies have drastically altered the way patients gather health-related information. By analysing web resources on tonsillectomy, we expose information quality and dynamics of patients' interactions in the online continuum. Readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Fog Index (GFI). Comprehensibility and actionability were assessed using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Metrics of forums included author characteristics (level of disclosure, gender, age, avatar image, etc.), posts' motive (community support vs. medical information) and content (word count, emoticon use, number of replies, etc.). Analysis of 6 professional medical websites, of 10 health information portals, and of 3 discussion forums totalizing 1369 posts on 358 threads, from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2014, reveals that online resources exceed understandability recommendations. Women were more present on online health forums (68.2% of authors disclosing their gender) and invested themselves more in their avatar. Authors replying were significantly older than authors of original posts (39.7 ± 0.8 years vs. 29.2 ± 0.9 years, p < 0.001). The degree of self-disclosure was inversely proportional to the requests for medical information (p < 0.001). Men and women were equally seeking medical information (men: 74.0%, women: 77.0%) and community support (men: 65.7%, women: 70.4%), however women responded more supportively (women 86.2%, men 59.1%, p < 0.001). The dynamics of patients' interactions used to overcome accessibility difficulties encountered is complex. This work outlines the necessity for comprehensible medical information to adequately answer patients' needs.

Understandability and actionability of audiovisual patient education materials on sinusitis

“…Prior studies across multiple specialties have evaluated both POEMs and A/V education materials and have found that patient education materials online are often incorrect and/or incomprehensible . The PEMAT specifically has been used most frequently to evaluate and study educational materials in internal medicine literature.…”

Readability and quality of online information regarding dental treatment for patients with ischaemic heart disease

“…(23,30) Since information is often poorly moderated, there is a risk of spreading potentially harmful information via the Internet. (31) Coupled with the wide use of the Internet as an initial or only primary source of health-related information, there is a great risk for patients and carers. Furthermore, given that health literacy is relatively low in the general population, (8,9) patients (or their carers) may: fail to recognise that important information is missing, fail to acknowledge biased content, misinterpret some medical information, and/or be unable to recognise non-evidence-based material.…”

Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT)

“…Other work has examined the IRR of the two PEMAT domains of understandability and actionability. These studies found that there was no significant difference between the PEMAT scores of two raters on webpages on tonsillectomy [25] or maritime health related information [26] at the p < 0.05 level. In addition, evaluations of patient education materials on c. Diff and surgical site infections had kappa values of 0.80 when comparing understandability and actionability scores among 3 raters [13, 14].…”