Stephanie J Handler1, Sarah E Eckhardt2, Yoko Takashima2, Ashaki M Jackson3, Christina Truong2, Tajnoos Yazdany2. 1. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA. stephanie.handler@gmail.com. 2. Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Los Angeles County Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 1000 W. Carson Street, Torrance, CA, 90509, USA. 3. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study is aimed at evaluating the readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders (PFD) and comparing their content with International Urogynecological Association patient education leaflets. METHODS: Readability was assessed using six different readability scales, including the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, which is considered superior for scoring healthcare information. Quality was assessed by three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellows using the modified DISCERN instrument. DISCERN is validated to evaluate the quality of written consumer health information; it was subsequently modified by health education researchers to enable the evaluation of Wikipedia articles. RESULTS: We evaluated 30 Wikipedia articles that correlated with 29 International Urogynecological Association leaflets. The mean SMOG score of the Wikipedia articles was 12.0 ± 2.1 (12th-grade reading level) whereas the mean SMOG score of the International Urological Association (IUGA) leaflets was 3.4 ± 0.3 (third-grade reading level, p < 0.001). The mean modified DISCERN score of the Wikipedia articles was 34.43 ± 5.90 (moderate quality); however, the mean modified DISCERN score of the IUGA literature was 45.02 ± 1.36 (good quality, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia articles on PFD are neither readable nor reliable: they require a 12th-grade-level education for comprehension and are merely rated moderate in quality. In comparison, IUGA leaflets require a third-grade education for comprehension and are rated good in quality. Urogynecological providers should provide appropriate health education materials to patients, as Wikipedia is both a popular and sometimes inaccurate resource for patients.
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: This study is aimed at evaluating the readability and quality of Wikipedia articles on pelvic floor disorders (PFD) and comparing their content with International Urogynecological Association patient education leaflets. METHODS: Readability was assessed using six different readability scales, including the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index, which is considered superior for scoring healthcare information. Quality was assessed by three female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery fellows using the modified DISCERN instrument. DISCERN is validated to evaluate the quality of written consumer health information; it was subsequently modified by health education researchers to enable the evaluation of Wikipedia articles. RESULTS: We evaluated 30 Wikipedia articles that correlated with 29 International Urogynecological Association leaflets. The mean SMOG score of the Wikipedia articles was 12.0 ± 2.1 (12th-grade reading level) whereas the mean SMOG score of the International Urological Association (IUGA) leaflets was 3.4 ± 0.3 (third-grade reading level, p < 0.001). The mean modified DISCERN score of the Wikipedia articles was 34.43 ± 5.90 (moderate quality); however, the mean modified DISCERN score of the IUGA literature was 45.02 ± 1.36 (good quality, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Wikipedia articles on PFD are neither readable nor reliable: they require a 12th-grade-level education for comprehension and are merely rated moderate in quality. In comparison, IUGA leaflets require a third-grade education for comprehension and are rated good in quality. Urogynecological providers should provide appropriate health education materials to patients, as Wikipedia is both a popular and sometimes inaccurate resource for patients.