Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: an infodemiological study

Abstract Background This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19. Methods Three search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were analyzed for eligibility, which resulted in a sample of 36 websites. These websites were subjected to quality assessments using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks tool, the DISCERN tool, and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode) certification. The readability of the websites was assessed using an online readability calculator. Results Among the 36 eligible websites, only one (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No website attained a high score based on the criteria of the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5 ± 12.55. As regards the JAMA benchmarks results, a mean score of 2.08 ± 1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only four (11.1%) met all the JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2 ± 7.5, 3.3 ± 0.6 and 93.5 ± 19.4 for the Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease scales, respectively. Conclusion Almost all of the most easily accessible web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 does not meet recognized quality standards regardless of the level of readability and ability to be understood by the general population of Arabic speakers.

Download Full-text

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19: Infodemiology study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-76512/v1 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Esam Halboub ◽

Mohammed Sultan Al-Akhali ◽

Hesham M Al-Mekhlafi ◽

Mohammed Nasser Alhajj

Keyword(s):

American Medical Association ◽

Health Information ◽

Grade Level ◽

Code Of Conduct ◽

Web Based ◽

Flesch Reading Ease ◽

Grade Levels ◽

The Mean ◽

The Web

Abstract Objective: The study sought to assess the quality and readability of the web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19. Methods: Selected search engines were searched on 13 April 2020 for specific Arabic terms on COVID-19. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The quality of the websites was analyzed using the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN benchmarks instrument. The readability was assessed using an online readability calculator tool. Results: Overall, 36 websites were found eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only one website (2.7%) was HONcode certified. No single website attained a high score based on the DISCERN tool; the mean score of all websites was 31.5±12.55. Regarding JAMA benchmarks, a mean score of 2.08±1.05 was achieved by the websites; however, only 4 (11.1%) websites achieved all JAMA criteria. The average grade levels for readability were 7.2±7.5, 3.3±0.6 and 93.5±19.4 for Flesch Kincaid Grade level, SMOG, Flesch Reading Ease, respectively. Conclusion: Most of the available web-based Arabic health information on COVID-19 doesn’t have the required level of quality, irrespective of being easy to read and understand by most of the general people.

Download Full-text

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

Advances in Preventive Medicine ◽

10.1155/2016/4815285 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 2016 ◽

pp. 1-6 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

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.

Download Full-text

Quality and readability of web-based Arabic health information on periodontal disease

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making ◽

10.1186/s12911-021-01413-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mohammed Sultan Al-Ak’hali ◽

Hytham N. Fageeh ◽

Esam Halboub ◽

Mohammed Nasser Alhajj ◽

Zaihan Ariffin

Keyword(s):

Periodontal Disease ◽

Health Professional ◽

Health Information ◽

Code Of Conduct ◽

Poor Quality ◽

Quality Information ◽

Quality Of Information ◽

Web Based ◽

The Mean

Abstract Background Currently, the Internet seems to be a helpful tool for obtaining information about everything that we think about, including diseases, their prevention and treatment approaches. However, doubts exist regarding the quality and readability of such information. This study sought to assess the quality and readability of web-based Arabic information on periodontal disease. Methods In this infodemiological study, the Google, Yahoo!, and Bing search engines were searched using specific Arabic terms on periodontal disease. The first 100 consecutive websites from each engine were obtained. The eligible websites were categorized as commercial, health/professional, journalism, and other. The following tools were applied to assess the quality of the information on the included websites: the Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct (HONcode), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmarks, and the DISCERN tool. The readability was assessed using an online readability tool. Results Of the 300 websites, 89 were eligible for quality and readability analyses. Only two websites (2.3%) were HONcode certified. Based on the DISCERN tool, 43 (48.3%) websites had low scores. The mean score of the JAMA benchmarks was 1.6 ± 1.0, but only 3 (3.4%) websites achieved “yes” responses for all four JAMA criteria. Based on the DISCERN tool, health/professional websites revealed the highest quality of information compared to other website categories. Most of the health/professional websites revealed moderate-quality information, while 55% of the commercial websites, 66% of journalism websites, and 43% of other websites showed poor quality information. Regarding readability, most of the analyzed websites presented simple and readable written content. Conclusions Aside from readable content, Arabic health information on the analyzed websites on periodontal disease is below the required level of quality.

Download Full-text

Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Information Leaflets for Antidiabetic Medications in Qatar

Journal of Pharmacy Technology ◽

10.1177/8755122517706978 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 33 (4) ◽

pp. 128-136 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Emad Eldin Munsour ◽

Ahmed Awaisu ◽

Mohamed Azmi Ahmad Hassali ◽

Sara Darwish ◽

Einas Abdoun

Keyword(s):

Patient Information ◽

Grade Level ◽

Literacy Skills ◽

English Only ◽

Flesch Reading Ease ◽

Patient Information Leaflets ◽

Grade Levels ◽

Information Leaflets ◽

Health Related ◽

The Mean

Background:The readability and comprehensibility of the patient information leaflets (PILs) provided with antidiabetic medications are of questionable standards; this issue negatively affects adherence to drug therapy, especially in patients with limited literacy skills. Objective: To evaluate the readability and comprehensibility of PILs supplied with medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in Qatar. Methods: All PILs of the antidiabetic medications in Qatar were evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score for readability. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading were used to estimate the comprehensibility of PILs in terms of school grade levels. Results: A total of 45 PILs were evaluated: 32 (71.1%) PILs of brand-name products and 13 (28.9%) for generics. Nine (20%) of the PILs were in English only; 8 (17.8%) were in English, Arabic, and French; and 28 (62.2%) were in English and Arabic. The mean FRE score was 37.71 (±15.85), and the most readable PIL had FRE score of 62. The mean scores for the comprehensibility evaluations were 10.96 (±2.67), 15.02 (±2.52), and 11.41 (±1.6) for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning-Fog Index, and SMOG Grading, respectively. The most commonly used antidiabetic medication was metformin with 1372.9 (±552.9) as PILs’ mean number of words. Conclusion: Only 2.2% of PILs had acceptable readability scores. All PILs could be comprehended by at least an 11th grade student, which exceeds the recommended grade level for health-related materials. Approximately 20% of these PILs were in English only and were not readable by most patients.

Download Full-text

Optimizing Health Information Technologies for Symptom Management in Cancer Patients and Survivors: Usability Evaluation (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.18412 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Emily G Lattie ◽

Michael Bass ◽

Sofia F Garcia ◽

Siobhan M Phillips ◽

Patricia I Moreno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cancer Survivors ◽

Cancer Patients ◽

Health Information ◽

Symptom Management ◽

Information Technologies ◽

Usability Testing ◽

Web Based ◽

Health Information Technologies ◽

Management Platform ◽

The Mean

BACKGROUND Unmanaged cancer symptoms and treatment-related side effects can compromise long-term clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life. Health information technologies such as web-based platforms offer the possibility to supplement existing care and optimize symptom management. OBJECTIVE This paper describes the development and usability of a web-based symptom management platform for cancer patients and survivors that will be implemented within a large health system. METHODS A web-based symptom management platform was designed and evaluated via one-on-one usability testing sessions. The System Usability Scale (SUS), After Scenario Questionnaire (ASQ), and qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews were used to assess program usability. RESULTS Ten cancer survivors and five cancer center staff members participated in usability testing sessions. The mean score on the SUS was 86.6 (SD 14.0), indicating above average usability. The mean score on the ASQ was 2.5 (SD 2.1), indicating relatively high satisfaction with the usability of the program. Qualitative analyses identified valued features of the program and recommendations for further improvements. CONCLUSIONS Cancer survivors and oncology care providers reported high levels of acceptability and usability in the initial development of a web-based symptom management platform for cancer survivors. Future work will test the effectiveness of this web-based platform.

Download Full-text

Readability of Printed Patient Information for Epileptic Patients

Annals of Pharmacotherapy ◽

10.1345/aph.1c098 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 36 (12) ◽

pp. 1856-1861 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

David R Foster ◽

Denise H Rhoney

Keyword(s):

Patient Information ◽

Grade Level ◽

Reading Ability ◽

Flesch Reading Ease ◽

Disease States ◽

Written Information ◽

Average Patient ◽

Ease Score ◽

The Mean ◽

Patients With Epilepsy

BACKGROUND: Written information can be a valuable tool in patient education. Studies evaluating written information for various disease states have frequently demonstrated that the majority of literature is written at a readability level that exceeds that of the average patient, and it has been recommended that written communications for adult patients should be provided at a fifth-grade level or lower. OBJECTIVE: To assess the readability of printed patient information available to patients with epilepsy. METHODS: Samples of written patient information (n = 101) were obtained from various sources. The information was classified based on source, content, and intended audience, and readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch—Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) score. RESULTS: The mean FRES and FKGL score for all samples were 50.2 and 9.4, respectively. Significant differences were observed in both the FRES and FKGL score of material obtained from different sources; however, no differences were observed when material was analyzed according to content. The mean FRES and FKGL score for materials intended for adults were 49.6 and 9.5, respectively. In comparison, mean FRES and FKGL scores for materials intended for children/adolescents were 78.9 and 5.3, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of information tested was written at a level that exceeds the reading ability of many patients. The information intended for children is actually written at the appropriate level for an adult. Efforts should be taken to develop written teaching tools that target low-level readers, especially for a disease state that affects many children.

Download Full-text

Web-Based Health Information Following the Renewal of the Cervical Screening Program in Australia: Evaluation of Readability, Understandability, and Credibility (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.16701 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Olivia A Mac ◽

Amy Thayre ◽

Shumei Tan ◽

Rachael H Dodd

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Information ◽

Health Care Provider ◽

Care Provider ◽

Screening Program ◽

Cervical Screening ◽

Care Providers ◽

Web Based ◽

Screening Programs ◽

The Mean

BACKGROUND Three main changes were implemented in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) in December 2017: an increase in the recommended age to start screening, extended screening intervals, and change from the Papanicolaou (Pap) test to primary human papillomavirus screening (cervical screening test). The internet is a readily accessible source of information to explain the reasons for these changes to the public. It is important that web-based health information about changes to national screening programs is accessible and understandable for the general population. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate Australian web-based resources that provide information about the changes to the cervical screening program. METHODS The term cervical screening was searched in 3 search engines. The first 10 relevant results across the first 3 pages of each search engine were selected. Overall, 2 authors independently evaluated each website for readability (Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [SMOG] index), quality of information (Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool [PEMAT] for printable materials), credibility (Journal of the American Medical Association [JAMA] benchmark criteria and presence of Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct [HONcode] certification), website design, and usability with 5 simulation questions to assess the relevance of information. A descriptive analysis was conducted for the readability measures, PEMAT, and the JAMA benchmark criteria. RESULTS Of the 49 websites identified in the search, 15 were eligible for inclusion. The consumer-focused websites were classed as fairly difficult to read (mean FRE score 51.8, SD 13.3). The highest FRE score (easiest to read) was 70.4 (Cancer Council Australia Cervical Screening Consumer Site), and the lowest FRE score (most difficult to read) was 33.0 (NCSP Clinical Guidelines). A total of 9 consumer-focused websites and 4 health care provider–focused websites met the recommended threshold (sixth to eighth grade; SMOG index) for readability. The mean PEMAT understandability scores were 87.7% (SD 6.0%) for consumer-focused websites and 64.9% (SD 13.8%) for health care provider–focused websites. The mean actionability scores were 58.1% (SD 19.1%) for consumer-focused websites and 36.7% (SD 11.0%) for health care provider–focused websites. Moreover, 9 consumer-focused and 3 health care provider–focused websites scored above 70% for understandability, and 2 consumer-focused websites had an actionability score above 70%. A total of 3 websites met all 4 of the JAMA benchmark criteria, and 2 websites displayed the HONcode. CONCLUSIONS It is important for women to have access to information that is at an appropriate reading level to better understand the implications of the changes to the cervical screening program. These findings can help health care providers direct their patients toward websites that provide information on cervical screening that is written at accessible reading levels and has high understandability. CLINICALTRIAL

Download Full-text

A credibility assessment of online breast cancer information

10.32920/ryerson.14645076 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Michelle Abarca-Cuming

Keyword(s):

Health Information ◽

Medical Information ◽

Code Of Conduct ◽

Rapid Expansion ◽

Cancer Information ◽

Digital Environment ◽

Web Based ◽

Written Information ◽

Health Market

The rapid expansion of the Internet and changes in the health market are giving rise to the emergence of web-based tools for seeking health information. As a result, the Web empowers consumers by allowing them to access important medical information that has traditionally been mediated through healthcare professionals. Along with this growing trend comes the challenge of establishing credibility in a digital environment saturated with health information. One way to begin addressing this challenge is to assess the projection of credibility of health information found online. The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, to develop a better understanding of how projections of credibility might differ between traditional and non-traditional online health sources. The former defined as websites belonging to formal and conventional institutions and the latter defined as informal and unconventional organizations. Secondly, to develop some strategic approaches that might be employed to enhance perceptions of online credibility. This paper conducts a content analysis using the Health on the Net Foundation’s Code of Conduct for medical and health websites and DISCERN, an instrument that assesses the quality of written information about treatment choices (DISCERN, 2012).

Download Full-text

Health websites on COVID-19: are they readable and credible enough to help public self-care?

Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA ◽

10.5195/jmla.2021.1020 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 109 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Saeideh Valizadeh-Haghi ◽

Yasser Khazaal ◽

Shahabedin Rahmatizadeh

Keyword(s):

Health Information ◽

High School Graduates ◽

Health Anxiety ◽

Code Of Conduct ◽

Search Term ◽

Flesch Reading Ease ◽

Search Terms ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Ease Score ◽

Readability Level

Objective: There are concerns about nonscientific and/or unclear information on the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that is available on the Internet. Furthermore, people’s ability to understand health information varies and depends on their skills in reading and interpreting information. This study aims to evaluate the readability and creditability of websites with COVID-19-related information.Methods: The search terms “coronavirus,” “COVID,” and “COVID-19” were input into Google. The websites of the first thirty results for each search term were evaluated in terms of their credibility and readability using the Health On the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode) and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning Fog, and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRE) scales, respectively.Results: The readability of COVID-19-related health information on websites was suitable for high school graduates or college students and, thus, was far above the recommended readability level. Most websites that were examined (87.2%) had not been officially certified by HONcode. There was no significant difference in the readability scores of websites with and without HONcode certification.Conclusion: These results suggest that organizations should improve the readability of their websites and provide information that more people can understand. This could lead to greater health literacy, less health anxiety, and the provision of better preventive information about the disease.

Download Full-text

Are informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology research protocols readable by most patients and their families?

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.1994.12.10.2211 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 12 (10) ◽

pp. 2211-2215 ◽

Cited By ~ 147

Author(s):

S A Grossman ◽

S Piantadosi ◽

C Covahey

Keyword(s):

Phase I ◽

Clinical Oncology ◽

Grade Level ◽

Cooperative Group ◽

Oncology Group ◽

Consent Forms ◽

Flesch Reading Ease ◽

Ease Score ◽

The Mean ◽

Johns Hopkins Oncology

PURPOSE This study was conducted to assess the readability of informed consent forms that describe clinical oncology protocols. METHODS One hundred thirty-seven consent forms from 88 protocols that accrued patients at The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center were quantitatively analyzed. These included 58 of 99 (59%) institutional protocols approved by The Johns Hopkins Oncology Center's Clinical Research Committee and the Institutional Review Board (IRB) over a 2-year period, and 30 active Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), and Pediatric Oncology Group (POG) trials. The consent forms described phase I (17%), phase I/II (36%), phase III (29%), and nontherapeutic (18%) studies. Each was optically scanned, checked for accuracy, and analyzed using readability software. The following three readability indices were obtained for each consent form: the Flesch Reading Ease Score, and grade level readability as determined by the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and the Gunning Fog Index. RESULTS The mean +/- SD Flesch Reading Ease Score for the consent forms was 52.6 +/- 8.7 (range, 33 to 78). The mean grade level was 11.1 +/- 1.67 (range, 6 to 14) using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and 14.1 +/- 1.8 (range, 8 to 17) using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability at or below an eighth-grade level was found in 6% of the consent forms using the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and in 1% using the Gunning Fog Index. Readability was similar for consent forms that described institutional, cooperative group, and phase I, II, and III protocols. CONCLUSION Consent forms from clinical oncology protocols are written at a level that is difficult for most patients to read, despite national, cooperative group, institutional, and departmental review. The consent process, which is crucial to clinical research, should be strengthened by improving the readability of the consent forms.

Download Full-text