Literature DB >> 18811992

Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information.

Tiffany M Walsh1, Teresa A Volsko.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A substantial amount of consumer health-related information is available on the Internet. Studies suggest that consumer comprehension may be compromised if content exceeds a 7th-grade reading level, which is the average American reading level identified by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS).
OBJECTIVE: To determine the readability of Internet-based consumer health information offered by organizations that represent the top 5 medical-related causes of death in America. We hypothesized that the average readability (reading grade level) of Internet-based consumer health information on heart disease, cancer, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes would exceed the USDHHS recommended reading level.
METHODS: From the Web sites of the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Diabetes Association, and American Stroke Association we randomly gathered 100 consumer-health-information articles. We assessed each article with 3 readability-assessment tools: SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook), Gunning FOG (Frequency of Gobbledygook), and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. We also categorized the articles per the USDHHS readability categories: easy to read (below 6th-grade level), average difficulty (7th to 9th grade level), and difficult (above 9th-grade level).
RESULTS: Most of the articles exceeded the 7th-grade reading level and were in the USDHHS "difficult" category. The mean +/- SD readability score ranges were: SMOG 11.80 +/- 2.44 to 14.40 +/- 1.47, Flesch-Kincaid 9.85 +/- 2.25 to 11.55 +/- 0.76, and Gunning FOG 13.10 +/- 3.42 to 16.05 +/- 2.31. The articles from the American Lung Association had the lowest reading-level scores with each of the readability-assessment tools.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support that Web-based medical information intended for consumer use is written above USDHHS recommended reading levels. Compliance with these recommendations may increase the likelihood of consumer comprehension.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18811992

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respir Care        ISSN: 0020-1324            Impact factor:   2.258


  57 in total

1.  Testicular Cancer on the Web-an Appropriate Source of Patient Information in Concordance with the European Association of Urology Guidelines?

Authors:  Pia Paffenholz; Johannes Salem; Hendrik Borgmann; Tim Nestler; David Pfister; Christian Ruf; Igor Tsaur; Axel Haferkamp; Axel Heidenreich
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Websites on Bladder Cancer: an Appropriate Source of Patient Information?

Authors:  Johannes Salem; Pia Paffenholz; Christian Bolenz; Melanie von Brandenstein; Angelika Cebulla; Axel Haferkamp; Timur Kuru; Cheryl T Lee; David Pfister; Igor Tsaur; Hendrik Borgmann; Axel Heidenreich
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Online nutrition information for pregnant women: a content analysis.

Authors:  Tayla Storr; Judith Maher; Elizabeth Swanepoel
Journal:  Matern Child Nutr       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 3.092

4.  Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes.

Authors:  Yue Guan; Kristin A Maloney; Debra L Roter; Toni I Pollin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 2.537

5.  Quality and readability of online information resources on insomnia.

Authors:  Yan Ma; Albert C Yang; Ying Duan; Ming Dong; Albert S Yeung
Journal:  Front Med       Date:  2017-05-13       Impact factor: 4.592

6.  Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors.

Authors:  Poonam Misra; Khushabu Kasabwala; Nitin Agarwal; Jean Anderson Eloy; James K Liu
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2012-07-19       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Are patient-reported outcome measures in orthopaedics easily read by patients?

Authors:  Ibraheim El-Daly; Hajir Ibraheim; Karthig Rajakulendran; Paul Culpan; Peter Bates
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Quantitative readability analysis of websites providing information on traumatic brain injury and epilepsy: A need for clear communication.

Authors:  Daniel José Correa; Lindsey Milano; Churl-Su Kwon; Nathalie Jetté; Dennis Dlugos; Lauren Harte-Hargrove; Mary Jo Pugh; Jessica K Smith; Solomon L Moshé
Journal:  Epilepsia       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 5.864

9.  The anxious wait: assessing the impact of patient accessible EHRs for breast cancer patients.

Authors:  David Wiljer; Kevin J Leonard; Sara Urowitz; Emma Apatu; Christine Massey; Naa Kwarley Quartey; Pamela Catton
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 2.796

10.  Readability of ASPS and ASAPS educational web sites: an analysis of consumer impact.

Authors:  Oluseyi Aliu; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 4.730

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.