“Quality, Readability, and Understandability of Online Posterior Glottic Stenosis Information”

Chapa, Julian S. De La; Bellinger, Jeffrey R; Timm, Allyson R; Daniero, James J.

doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.11.036

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is similar to observations by McKearney and McKearney [ 70 ] and Grose et al [ 71 ], who both reported an average reading level of 10th grade on websites discussing ear tubes and neck dissections, respectively. Websites with information with a reading grade higher than the recommended level were also reported by Raja and Fitzpatrick [ 29 ], De La Chapa et al [ 72 ], Crabtree and Lee [ 3 ], and Kim et al [ 73 ], thus demonstrating the poor readability of health care websites in general.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis

Tan,

Ko,

Fan

2023

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is a rare disease that is strongly associated with exposure to the Epstein-Barr virus and is characterized by the formation of malignant cells in nasopharynx tissues. Early diagnosis of NPC is often difficult owing to the location of initial tumor sites and the nonspecificity of initial symptoms, resulting in a higher frequency of advanced-stage diagnoses and a poorer prognosis. Access to high-quality, readable information could improve the early detection of the disease and provide support to patients during disease management. Objective This study aims to assess the quality and readability of publicly available web-based information in the English language about NPC, using the most popular search engines. Methods Key terms relevant to NPC were searched across 3 of the most popular internet search engines: Google, Yahoo, and Bing. The top 25 results from each search engine were included in the analysis. Websites that contained text written in languages other than English, required paywall access, targeted medical professionals, or included nontext content were excluded. Readability for each website was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease score and the Flesch-Kincaid grade level. Website quality was assessed using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and DISCERN tools as well as the presence of a Health on the Net Foundation seal. Results Overall, 57 suitable websites were included in this study; 26% (15/57) of the websites were academic. The mean JAMA and DISCERN scores of all websites were 2.80 (IQR 3) and 57.60 (IQR 19), respectively, with a median of 3 (IQR 2-4) and 61 (IQR 49-68), respectively. Health care industry websites (n=3) had the highest mean JAMA score of 4 (SD 0). Academic websites (15/57, 26%) had the highest mean DISCERN score of 77.5. The Health on the Net Foundation seal was present on only 1 website, which also achieved a JAMA score of 3 and a DISCERN score of 50. Significant differences were observed between the JAMA score of hospital websites and the scores of industry websites (P=.04), news service websites (P<.048), charity and nongovernmental organization websites (P=.03). Despite being a vital source for patients, general practitioner websites were found to have significantly lower JAMA scores compared with charity websites (P=.05). The overall mean readability scores reflected an average reading age of 14.3 (SD 1.1) years. Conclusions The results of this study suggest an inconsistent and suboptimal quality of information related to NPC on the internet. On average, websites presented readability challenges, as written information about NPC was above the recommended reading level of sixth grade. As such, web-based information requires improvement in both quality and accessibility, and healthcare providers should be selective about information recommended to patients, ensuring they are reliable and readable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis

Tan,

Ko,

Fan

2023

JMIR Form Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…38,50,51 However, prior studies have demonstrated that internet educational materials from traditional search engines are of variable quality and written at an unsuitably high reading level. [21][22][23][24]26,27,[32][33][34]37,[52][53][54] The results of FKGL and FRE scores demonstrate that not only are the Google webpages written at inappropriately high reading levels, but comparatively, the ChatGPT responses are written at an even higher reading level with scores of 13.9 ± 2.5 (P = < .001) and 34.9 ± 11.2 (P = .005), respectively. These ChatGPT results are equivalent to a college reading level, well above the recommended reading level for patient materials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Health care organizations such as the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Health recommend that information for patient education be written between a fourth‐ and sixth‐grade reading level 38,50,51 . However, prior studies have demonstrated that internet educational materials from traditional search engines are of variable quality and written at an unsuitably high reading level 21‐24,26,27,32‐34,37,52‐54 . The results of FKGL and FRE scores demonstrate that not only are the Google webpages written at inappropriately high reading levels, but comparatively, the ChatGPT responses are written at an even higher reading level with scores of 13.9 ± 2.5 ( P = < .001) and 34.9 ± 11.2 ( P = .005), respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Acquiring information from the internet can aid patients in making more informed decisions, connect with online support groups, and serve as an adjunct in medical education to make better use of provider time. 34 However, online health information from search engines can vary greatly in the information they present. This information can range from the latest peer-reviewed journal article to unvetted, unrelated personal anecdotes from other patients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Search engines generating this information are rapidly evolving to incorporate conversation-like AI into their product. Although prior studies have addressed traditional search engine-based patient educational material regarding BPPV, 20 Bell's Palsy, 21 cochlear implants, 22 and many other topics within the field of otolaryngology [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and beyond, [37][38][39][40] no prior studies have attempted to quantitively assess online patient education materials comparing traditional search engines versus conversational AI models. The purpose of this study is to assess the quality, readability, understandability, actionability, and accuracy of information pertaining to BPPV in a traditional search engine compared to a conversational AI model.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

BPPV Information on Google Versus AI (ChatGPT)

Bellinger,

De La Chapa,

Kwak

et al. 2023

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo quantitatively compare online patient education materials found using traditional search engines (Google) versus conversational Artificial Intelligence (AI) models (ChatGPT) for benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV).Study DesignThe top 30 Google search results for “benign paroxysmal positional vertigo” were compared to the OpenAI conversational AI language model, ChatGPT, responses for 5 common patient questions posed about BPPV in February 2023. Metrics included readability, quality, understandability, and actionability.SettingOnline information.MethodsValidated online information metrics including Flesch‐Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), DISCERN instrument score, and Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Printed Materials were analyzed and scored by reviewers.ResultsMean readability scores, FKGL and FRE, for the Google webpages were 10.7 ± 2.6 and 46.5 ± 14.3, respectively. ChatGPT responses had a higher FKGL score of 13.9 ± 2.5 (P < .001) and a lower FRE score of 34.9 ± 11.2 (P = .005), both corresponding to lower readability. The Google webpages had a DISCERN part 2 score of 25.4 ± 7.5 compared to the individual ChatGPT responses with a score of 17.5 ± 3.9 (P = .001), and the combined ChatGPT responses with a score of 25.0 ± 0.9 (P = .928). The average scores of the reviewers for all ChatGPT responses for accuracy were 4.19 ± 0.82 and 4.31 ± 0.67 for currency.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that the information on ChatGPT is more difficult to read, of lower quality, and more difficult to comprehend compared to information on Google searches.

show abstract

Assessing the Readability and Quality of Web-Based Resources on Exercise Stress Testing: A Cross-Sectional Readability and Quality Analysis (Preprint)

Rahbe,

Mistry,

Khawaja

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Health literacy is a crucial determinant and independent predictor of patient outcomes. To enhance patient understanding across diverse populations, the American Medical Association (AMA) advises that health information be written at a 6th-grade reading level. The exercise stress test is a widely used diagnostic tool, frequently ordered in outpatient settings to assess cardiovascular health. Although numerous studies have evaluated the readability of various cardiovascular health topics, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the readability and quality of health information pertaining to exercise stress tests. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to evaluate the readability and quality of publicly available information regarding exercise stress tests on the Google and Bing search engines. METHODS Four search terms were entered into both the Google and Bing search engines, and websites containing information pertaining to exercise stress tests were assessed for their readability and quality. Web pages were classified as “academic” or “non-academic” based on whether the publishing website was affiliated with an academic institution. Readability was assessed using the Flesch-Kincade Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) scores, while quality was assessed using the DISCERN criteria. The resulting scores were calculated, and independent sample t-tests were performed to compare the individual scores of the academic and non-academic sources. RESULTS This study assessed 18 websites in total, and the mean grade level (mean ± SD, 8.36 ± 1.32) and reading ease (62.31 ± 6.65) exceeded the current AMA recommendations. Furthermore, the quality of the web pages was determined to be “fair” as per the DISCERN grading criteria. Academic sources had greater FKGL and FRE scores that were additionally found to be statistically significant in comparison to the scores of the non-academic sources with p-values of 0.032, and 0.006, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Websites containing information pertaining to exercise stress tests are written at a grade level that exceeds current recommendations, with academic sources being significantly more difficult to read when compared to non-academic sources. The quality of the web pages evaluated in this study was deemed to be fair. However, quality can be improved by including references to sources as well as additional resources for readers seeking more information. Improving readability can be challenging as medical terminology is often intrinsically complex. While substituting or omitting these terms may improve readability, it risks delivering incomplete or oversimplified information to patients.

show abstract

“Quality, Readability, and Understandability of Online Posterior Glottic Stenosis Information”

Cited by 3 publications

References 45 publications

The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis

The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis

BPPV Information on Google Versus AI (ChatGPT)

Assessing the Readability and Quality of Web-Based Resources on Exercise Stress Testing: A Cross-Sectional Readability and Quality Analysis (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About