Readability of Consumer Health Information on the Internet: A Comparison of U.S. Government–Funded and Commercially Funded Websites

Abstract

The Internet has become an extremely prevalent means of communicating health information to consumers. Guidelines for selecting reliable health information websites give preference to U.S. government sites over commercially funded sites. However, these websites are not useful to consumers unless they are able to read and understand them. The authors' objective was to compare the readability of Internet health information intended for consumers found on U.S. government-funded websites versus that found on commercially funded websites. Consumer health websites were identified through a systematic Internet search. Webpages for 10 common health topics were extracted from each website. Readability of webpages was determined by 3 validated measures: Flesch Reading Ease, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level, and SMOG Formula. Mean readability of government-funded and commercially funded websites was compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Commercially funded websites were significantly more difficult to read as measured by Flesch Reading Ease (49.7 vs. 55.6 for government-funded sites, p = .002) and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level (10.1 vs. 9.3, p = .012). There was no significant difference according to SMOG Formula (12.8 vs. 13.2, p = .150). The overall readability of Internet health information intended for consumers was poor. Efforts should be made to ensure that health information communicated via the Internet is easy for consumers to read and understand.

The Readability of Electronic Cigarette Health Information and Advice: A Quantitative Analysis of Web-Based Information

“…Moreover, EHIA written by for-profit entities, many of whom were advocating e-cigarettes, were significantly easier to read than materials written by nongovernment organizations, non-US government entities, and the US government. Our results contrast with the results of a previous readability study comparing health information written by commercially funded sources and government-funded sources [18]. However, both studies found that the readability of health information was generally too difficult for the public.…”

“…To assess readability (ie, the estimated US grade level that is required to comprehend a text), we used Flesch-Kincaid grade level [22], Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index [23], Coleman and Liau Index [24], and automated readability index [25], which are widely used metrics in previously mentioned readability studies [10-16,18]. To perform the automated readability analysis, we used the open-source Python textstat package [26].…”

“…For instance, smoking education materials [10], warnings on alcohol and tobacco products [11], Web-based patient education materials [12-14], informed consent documents used in clinical trial research [15], government endorsed written action-plan handouts [16], and commercially available health information [17] were found to require higher literacy levels than that recommended by the NIH and HHS. Moreover, health information available from commercially funded sources was significantly more difficult to read than information available from government-funded sources [18]. This complexity often led to comprehension errors [19,20] for average Americans.…”

An overview of current and potential use of information and communication technologies for immunization promotion among adolescents

“…Indeed, more than 20% of social network users keep track of updates or their online friends’ health experiences on network sites, 11% post medical queries, and 9% join a health-related group on a media site 79 . Moreover, it has been shown that even medical students are more inclined to use social network pages on influenza vaccination in an informal language, 80 rather than the highly technical language that is often used by the websites of official health authorities 81 . The above considerations indicate that social network sites are potentially efficacious in delivering vaccination and health promotion messages to teenagers.…”

Portal for Families Overcoming Neurodevelopmental Disorders (PFOND): Implementation of a Software Framework for Facilitated Community Website Creation by Nontechnical Volunteers

“…Resources with broad coverage of rare genetic disorders include OMIM, GeneTests, and OrphaNet. These sites provide information for research professionals but have limited content for the general public [19,20]. The challenge posed to rare disease communities is enormous.…”