A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Quality, Readability, and Technical Quality of Online Information on Glaucoma

被引:8
作者
Shah, Ronak [1 ]
Mahajan, Jasmine [2 ]
Oydanich, Marko [2 ]
Khouri, Albert S. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] SUNY Stony Brook, Renaissance Sch Med, Stony Brook, NY USA
[2] Rutgers New Jersey Med Sch, Inst Ophthalmol & Visual Sci, Newark, NJ USA
[3] 90 Bergen St, Suite 6100, Newark, NJ 07103 USA
来源
OPHTHALMOLOGY GLAUCOMA | 2023年 / 6卷 / 01期
关键词
Glaucoma; Online information; Quality; Readability; PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS; HEALTH INFORMATION; INTERNET; RELIABILITY; LITERACY; HONCODE; TRENDS; WEB;
D O I
10.1016/j.ogla.2022.07.007
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose: To evaluate the quality and reliability of medical information, the technical quality of the presen-tation of information, and the readability of informational websites that publish content on the definition, causes, symptoms, and treatment of glaucoma.Design: A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess information published on websites with regard to glaucoma. Subjects: The top 150 websites populated on a Google search using the keywords glaucoma, high intra-ocular pressure, and high eye pressure were chosen for evaluation.Methods: Two independent reviewers assessed quality and reliability of each website using the DISCERN, Health on the Net Code (HONcode), and Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) criteria. The re-viewers also evaluated technical quality by determining each website's ability to satisfy 10 unique features. Readability was assessed using the Readability Studio software (Oleander Software).Main Outcome Measures: Quality of information was analyzed using the DISCERN, HONcode, and JAMA criteria. To assess readability, the Bormuth Cloze Mean, Bormuth Grade Placement, Flesch Kincaid Reading Ease, Coleman-Liau Index, Gunning Fog Score, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook Index, Readability Score, Fry Estimate, Raygor Estimate, and the Overall Mean Readability metrics were used. A separate subanalysis cate-gorized websites into institutional and private categories.Results: Readability was poor among all websites, with most websites requiring a reading level higher than the 11th grade. The overall mean DISCERN score + standard deviation (SD) was 3.0 + 0.4, the mean HONcode score + SD was 9.6 + 1.8, and the mean JAMA score + SD was 2.1 + 1.1. The reviewers had moderate to excellent interrater reliability. Institutional websites (n = 39) had a higher mean DISCERN score (3.18 + 0.33 vs. 2.95 + 0.39, P < 0.05) and mean HONcode score (10.18 + 1.90 vs. 9.34 + 1.71, P < 0.05) than those of private websites (n = 111). Technical quality was higher among institutional websites (P < 0.05).Conclusions: An overwhelming majority of websites presented information of low quality, reliability, and readability. Institutional websites generally received higher scores than those received by private websites; however, overall scores were still substandard, which necessitates improvement of online information on glaucoma. Ophthalmology Glaucoma 2023;6:93-99 & COPY; 2022 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology
引用
收藏
页码:93 / 99
页数:7
相关论文
共 43 条
[11]  
Cohen Robin A, 2011, NCHS Data Brief, P1
[12]   Can Patients Trust Online Health Information? A Meta-narrative Systematic Review Addressing the Quality of Health Information on the Internet [J].
Daraz, Lubna ;
Morrow, Allison S. ;
Ponce, Oscar J. ;
Beuschel, Bradley ;
Farah, Magdoleen H. ;
Katabi, Abdulrahman ;
Alsawas, Mouaz ;
Majzoub, Abdul M. ;
Benkhadra, Raed ;
Seisa, Mohamed O. ;
Ding, Jingyi ;
Prokop, Larry ;
Murad, M. Hassan .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2019, 34 (09) :1884-1891
[13]   A Google Trends Analysis of Facial Plastic Surgery Interest During the COVID-19 Pandemic [J].
Dhanda, Aatin K. ;
Leverant, Elizabeth ;
Leshchuk, Kalyna ;
Paskhover, Boris .
AESTHETIC PLASTIC SURGERY, 2020, 44 (04) :1378-1380
[14]   Patients' use of the Internet for medical information [J].
Diaz, JA ;
Griffith, RA ;
Ng, JJ ;
Reinert, SE ;
Friedmann, PD ;
Moulton, AW .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2002, 17 (03) :180-185
[15]   Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web - A systematic review [J].
Eysenbach, G ;
Powell, J ;
Kuss, O ;
Sa, ER .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2002, 287 (20) :2691-2700
[16]   Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape [J].
Fahy, Eamonn ;
Hardikar, Rohan ;
Fox, Adrian ;
Mackay, Sean .
AUSTRALASIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 7 (01) :24-28
[17]   Readability of Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Part B Procedural Safeguards: An Update [J].
Gray, Sara A. ;
Zraick, Richard, I ;
Atcherson, Samuel R. .
LANGUAGE SPEECH AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS, 2019, 50 (03) :373-384
[18]   Use of Electronic Health and Its Impact on Doctor-Visiting Decisions Among People With Diabetes: Cross-Sectional Study [J].
Hansen, Anne Helen ;
Claudi, Tor ;
Arsand, Eirik .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2019, 21 (04)
[19]   Trust and sources of health information - The impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: Findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey [J].
Hesse, BW ;
Nelson, DE ;
Kreps, GL ;
Croyle, RT ;
Arora, NK ;
Rimer, BK ;
Viswanath, K .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2005, 165 (22) :2618-2624
[20]   Assessment of Online Patient Education Materials From Major Ophthalmologic Associations [J].
Huang, Grace ;
Fang, Christina H. ;
Agarwal, Nitin ;
Bhagat, Neelakshi ;
Eloy, Jean Anderson ;
Langer, Paul D. .
JAMA OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 133 (04) :449-454