OBJECTIVE: The Internet has become an important source of health-related information for consumers, among whom younger women constitute a notable group. The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the quality and readability of online information about gynecologic cancer using validated instruments and (2) to relate the quality of information to its readability. METHODS: Using the Alexa Rank, we obtained a list of 35 Web pages providing information about 7 gynecologic malignancies. These were assessed using the Health on the Net (HON) seal of approval, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN instrument. Flesch readability score was calculated for sections related to symptoms and signs and treatment. RESULTS: Less than 30% of the Web pages displayed the HON seal or achieved all JAMA benchmarks. The majority of the treatment sections were of moderate to high quality according to the DISCERN. There was no significant relationship between the presence of the HON seal and readability. Web pages achieving all JAMA benchmarks were significantly more difficult to read and understand than Web pages that missed any of the JAMA benchmarks. Treatment-related content of moderate to high quality as assessed by the DISCERN had a significantly better readability score than the low-quality content. CONCLUSIONS: The online information about gynecologic cancer provided by the most frequently visited Web pages is of variable quality and in general difficult to read and understand. The relationship between the quality and readability remains unclear. Health care providers should direct their patients to reliable material online because patients consider the Internet as an important source of information.
OBJECTIVE: The Internet has become an important source of health-related information for consumers, among whom younger women constitute a notable group. The aims of this study were (1) to evaluate the quality and readability of online information about gynecologic cancer using validated instruments and (2) to relate the quality of information to its readability. METHODS: Using the Alexa Rank, we obtained a list of 35 Web pages providing information about 7 gynecologic malignancies. These were assessed using the Health on the Net (HON) seal of approval, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN instrument. Flesch readability score was calculated for sections related to symptoms and signs and treatment. RESULTS: Less than 30% of the Web pages displayed the HON seal or achieved all JAMA benchmarks. The majority of the treatment sections were of moderate to high quality according to the DISCERN. There was no significant relationship between the presence of the HON seal and readability. Web pages achieving all JAMA benchmarks were significantly more difficult to read and understand than Web pages that missed any of the JAMA benchmarks. Treatment-related content of moderate to high quality as assessed by the DISCERN had a significantly better readability score than the low-quality content. CONCLUSIONS: The online information about gynecologic cancer provided by the most frequently visited Web pages is of variable quality and in general difficult to read and understand. The relationship between the quality and readability remains unclear. Health care providers should direct their patients to reliable material online because patients consider the Internet as an important source of information.
Authors: Eman A Alshaikh; Abdulaziz F Almedimigh; Abdulmajeed M Alruwaili; Abdullah H Almajnoni; Ali Alhajiahmed; Thamer S Almalki; Sukayna Z Alfaraj; Jesse M Pines Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Jose Yunam Cuan-Baltazar; Maria José Muñoz-Perez; Carolina Robledo-Vega; Maria Fernanda Pérez-Zepeda; Elena Soto-Vega Journal: JMIR Public Health Surveill Date: 2020-04-09
Authors: Ka Siu Fan; Shahi Abdul Ghani; Nikolaos Machairas; Lorenzo Lenti; Ka Hay Fan; Daniel Richardson; Aneya Scott; Dimitri Aristotle Raptis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 2.692