Readability of Online Health Information: A Meta-Narrative Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 487-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lubna Daraz ◽  
Allison S. Morrow ◽  
Oscar J. Ponce ◽  
Wigdan Farah ◽  
Abdulrahman Katabi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
General Public ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Online Health Information ◽  
Cross Sectional

Online health information should meet the reading level for the general public (set at sixth-grade level). Readability is a key requirement for information to be helpful and improve quality of care. The authors conducted a systematic review to evaluate the readability of online health information in the United States and Canada. Out of 3743 references, the authors included 157 cross-sectional studies evaluating 7891 websites using 13 readability scales. The mean readability grade level across websites ranged from grade 10 to 15 based on the different scales. Stratification by specialty, health condition, and type of organization producing information revealed the same findings. In conclusion, online health information in the United States and Canada has a readability level that is inappropriate for general public use. Poor readability can lead to misinformation and may have a detrimental effect on health. Efforts are needed to improve readability and the content of online health information.

scholarly journals Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy P Worrall ◽  
Mary J Connolly ◽  
Aine O'Neill ◽  
Murray O'Doherty ◽  
Kenneth P Thornton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Health Information ◽  
General Public ◽  
Information Source ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Information ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
English Speaking

Abstract Introduction: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first twenty webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p <0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

scholarly journals What is the prevalence of current alcohol dependence and how is it measured for Indigenous people in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America? A systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Teagan J. Weatherall ◽  
Katherine M. Conigrave ◽  
James H. Conigrave ◽  
K. S. Kylie Lee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Alcohol Dependence ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
The United States ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Current Alcohol

Abstract Background Alcohol affects Indigenous communities globally that have been colonised. These effects are physical, psychological, financial and cultural. This systematic review aims to describe the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence in Indigenous Peoples in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, to identify how it is measured, and if tools have been validated in Indigenous communities. Such information can help inform estimates of likely treatment need. Methods A systematic search of the literature was completed in six electronic databases for reports on current alcohol dependence (moderate to severe alcohol use disorder) published between 1 January 1989–9 July 2020. The following data were extracted: (1) the Indigenous population studied; country, (2) prevalence of dependence, (3) tools used to screen, assess or diagnose current dependence, (4) tools that have been validated in Indigenous populations to screen, assess or diagnose dependence, and (5) quality of the study, assessed using the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. Results A total of 11 studies met eligibility criteria. Eight were cross-sectional surveys, one cohort study, and two were validation studies. Nine studies reported on the prevalence of current (12-month) alcohol dependence, and the range varied widely (3.8–33.3% [all participants], 3–32.8% [males only], 1.3–7.6% [females only]). Eight different tools were used and none were Indigenous-specific. Two tools have been validated in Indigenous (Native American) populations. Conclusion Few studies report on prevalence of current alcohol dependence in community or household samples of Indigenous populations in these four countries. Prevalence varies according to sampling method and site (for example, specific community versus national). Prior work has generally not used tools validated in Indigenous contexts. Collaborations with local Indigenous people may help in the development of culturally appropriate ways of measuring alcohol dependence, incorporating local customs and values. Tools used need to be validated in Indigenous communities, or Indigenous-specific tools developed, validated and used. Prevalence findings can inform health promotion and treatment needs, including funding for primary health care and specialist treatment services.

scholarly journals Readability of Online COVID-19 Health Information: A Comparison between Four English Speaking Countries

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy P Worrall ◽  
Mary J Connolly ◽  
Aine O'Neill ◽  
Murray O'Doherty ◽  
Kenneth P Thornton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Health Information ◽  
General Public ◽  
Information Source ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Information ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
English Speaking

Abstract Background: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first twenty webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p <0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

scholarly journals Readability of online COVID-19 health information: a comparison between four English speaking countries

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy P. Worrall ◽  
Mary J. Connolly ◽  
Aine O’Neill ◽  
Murray O’Doherty ◽  
Kenneth P. Thornton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Health Information ◽  
General Public ◽  
Information Source ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Information ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
English Speaking

Abstract Background The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin. Methods The Google® search engine was used to collate the first 20 webpage URLs for three individual searches for ‘COVID’, ‘COVID-19’, and ‘coronavirus’ from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability. Results There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p < 0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions. Conclusion Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Quality and Readability of Health Information Websites Identified through India’s Major Search Engines

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Raj ◽  
V. L. Sharma ◽  
A. J. Singh ◽  
S. Goel
Keyword(s):  
Health Information ◽  
Search Engines ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean

Background. The available health information on websites should be reliable and accurate in order to make informed decisions by community. This study was done to assess the quality and readability of health information websites on World Wide Web in India.Methods. This cross-sectional study was carried out in June 2014. The key words “Health” and “Information” were used on search engines “Google” and “Yahoo.” Out of 50 websites (25 from each search engines), after exclusion, 32 websites were evaluated. LIDA tool was used to assess the quality whereas the readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and SMOG.Results. Forty percent of websites (n=13) were sponsored by government. Health On the Net Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification was present on 50% (n=16) of websites. The mean LIDA score (74.31) was average. Only 3 websites scored high on LIDA score. Only five had readability scores at recommended sixth-grade level.Conclusion. Most health information websites had average quality especially in terms of usability and reliability and were written at high readability levels. Efforts are needed to develop the health information websites which can help general population in informed decision making.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmology: too difficult to read?

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000693
Author(s):  
Deanna J Taylor ◽  
Lee Jones ◽  
Laura Edwards ◽  
David P Crabb
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Sixth Grade ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Age Related Macular Degeneration ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectivePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in clinical trials and research. Yet, in order to be effective, a PROM needs to be understandable to respondents. The aim of this cross-sectional analysis was to assess reading level of PROMs validated for use in common eye conditions.Methods and analysisReadability measures determine the level of education a person is expected to have attained to be able to read a passage of text; this was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, FORCAST and Gunning-Fog tests within readability calculations software package Oleander Readability Studio 2012.1. Forty PROMs, previously validated for use in at least one of age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma and/or diabetic retinopathy, were identified for inclusion via a systematic literature search. The American Medical Association (AMA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommend patient materials should not exceed a sixth-grade reading level. Number of PROMs exceeding this level was calculated.ResultsMedian (IQR) readability scores were 7.9 (5.4–10.5), 9.9 (8.9–10.7) and 8.4 (6.9–11.1) for Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, FORCAST and Gunning-Fog test, respectively. Depending on metric used, this meant 61% (95% CI 45% to 76%), 100% (95% CI 91% to 100%) and 80% (95% CI 65% to 91%) exceeded the recommended threshold.ConclusionMost PROMs commonly used in ophthalmology require a higher reading level than that recommended by the AMA and NIH and likely contain questions that are too difficult for many patients to read. Greater care is needed in designing PROMs appropriate for the literacy level of a population.

scholarly journals Poor Readability of COVID-19 Vaccine Information for the General Public: A Lost Opportunity

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke S Buthun ◽  
Scott Feeder ◽  
Gregory A Poland
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Adverse Event ◽  
Grade Level ◽  
Average Length ◽  
The United States ◽  
Reading Level ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Control And Prevention ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
Vaccine Information

Background: All adults in the Unites States now have access to COVID-19 vaccines. During the vaccination process, Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) fact sheets are provided. Objective: To analyze the ease of reading (i.e., readability) of the EUA-approved fact sheets for the vaccines currently available in the United States, the V-Safe adverse event survey script, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website on COVID-19 vaccines. Design: We analyzed the readability of Pfizer, Moderna, and Janssen EUA fact sheets, as well as the V-Safe survey script and the vaccine-related information on the CDC website. Measurements: Readability factors include the following: average length of paragraphs, sentences, and words; font size and style; use of passive voice; the Gunning-Fog index; the Flesch Reading Ease index; and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level index. Results: Only the V-Safe adverse event survey script met readability standards for adequate comprehension. The mean readability scores of the EUA fact sheets and the CDC website were as follows: Flesch Reading Ease score (mean 44.35); Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (mean 10.48); and Gunning-Fog index (mean 11.8). These scores indicate that a 10th-12th grade-level education is necessary to comprehend these documents. Conclusion: The average person in the United States would have difficulty understanding the information provided in the EUA fact sheets and CDC COVID-19 vaccine website; however, the V-Safe survey was written at an appropriate reading level. To ensure that the public fully understands information regarding COVID-19 vaccines, simplified information material should be developed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document