Elizabeth Sheena John1,2, Ann M John3, David R Hansberry4, Prashant J Thomas5, Prateek Agarwal6, Christopher Deitch7, Sita Chokhavatia8. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Elizabethjohn17@gmail.com. 2. Department of Gastroenterology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA. Elizabethjohn17@gmail.com. 3. Department of Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA. 6. Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Department of Gastroenterology, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ, USA. 8. Department of Gastroenterology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently turn to the Internet to improve their understanding of tests used for detection, including colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and CT colonography. It was of interest to determine the quality and readability levels of online health information. METHODS: The screening tools were googled, and the top 20 results of each test were analyzed for readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability. The 80 articles excluded scientific literature and blogs. We used ten validated readability scales to measure grade levels, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly statistical different (HSD) post hoc analyses to determine any statistically significant differences among the four diagnostic tests. The LIDA tool assessed overall quality by measuring accessibility, usability, and reliability. RESULTS: The 80 articles were written at an 11.7 grade level, with CT colonography articles written at significantly higher levels than FOBT articles, F(3, 75) = 3.07, p = 0.033. LIDA showed moderate percentages in accessibility (83.9 %), usability (73.0 %), and reliability (75.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Online health information about CRC screening tools are written at higher levels than the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) recommended third to seventh grade levels. More patients could benefit from this modality of information if it were written at a level and quality that would better facilitate understanding.
PURPOSE:Patients screened for colorectal cancer (CRC) frequently turn to the Internet to improve their understanding of tests used for detection, including colonoscopy, flexible sigmoidoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and CT colonography. It was of interest to determine the quality and readability levels of online health information. METHODS: The screening tools were googled, and the top 20 results of each test were analyzed for readability, accessibility, usability, and reliability. The 80 articles excluded scientific literature and blogs. We used ten validated readability scales to measure grade levels, and one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly statistical different (HSD) post hoc analyses to determine any statistically significant differences among the four diagnostic tests. The LIDA tool assessed overall quality by measuring accessibility, usability, and reliability. RESULTS: The 80 articles were written at an 11.7 grade level, with CT colonography articles written at significantly higher levels than FOBT articles, F(3, 75) = 3.07, p = 0.033. LIDA showed moderate percentages in accessibility (83.9 %), usability (73.0 %), and reliability (75.9 %). CONCLUSIONS: Online health information about CRC screening tools are written at higher levels than the National Institute of Health (NIH) and American Medical Association (AMA) recommended third to seventh grade levels. More patients could benefit from this modality of information if it were written at a level and quality that would better facilitate understanding.
Entities:
Keywords:
Colorectal cancer screening; Health literacy; LIDA; Readability
Authors: G K Berland; M N Elliott; L S Morales; J I Algazy; R L Kravitz; M S Broder; D E Kanouse; J A Muñoz; J A Puyol; M Lara; K E Watkins; H Yang; E A McGlynn Journal: JAMA Date: 2001 May 23-30 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Marcia E Bouton; Gina R Shirah; Jesse Nodora; Erika Pond; Chiu-Hsieh Hsu; Anne E Klemens; Maria Elena Martinez; Ian K Komenaka Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-31 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Jean Anderson Eloy; Shawn Li; Khushabu Kasabwala; Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Soly Baredes; Michael Setzen Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2012-08-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Nitin Agarwal; David R Hansberry; Victor Sabourin; Krystal L Tomei; Charles J Prestigiacomo Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-07-08 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: David R Hansberry; Carl Kraus; Nitin Agarwal; Stephen R Baker; Sharon F Gonzales Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2014-01-31 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Terry C Davis; Mark V Williams; Estela Marin; Ruth M Parker; Jonathan Glass Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 508.702