scholarly journals Online Readability of COVID-19 Health Information

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy P Worrall ◽  
Mary J Connolly ◽  
Aine O'Neill ◽  
Murray O'Doherty ◽  
Kenneth P Thornton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Media ◽  
Health Information ◽  
General Public ◽  
Information Source ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ease Score

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

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.

scholarly journals Mobile and Online Health Information: Exploring Digital Media Use among Austrian Parents

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (17) ◽  
pp. 6053 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela Haluza ◽  
Isabella Böhm
Keyword(s):  
Child Health ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Parental Education ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Family Policy ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Cross Sectional

In today’s digitalized world, most parents are Internet-savvy and use online sources for child health information, mainly due to the 24/7 availability of advice. However, parents are often not specifically trained to identify reliable, evidence-based sources of information. In this cross-sectional online survey among a purposive, non-probabilistic sample of Austrian parents (n = 90, 81.1% females), we assessed aspects of health app use and family policy benefits-related and scenario-based Internet seeking behavior. We found that the surveyed parents showed a high health app use. The participants indicated that they prefer online information seeking to any other option in a scenario describing that their child would be sick at after-work hours, with social media channels being the least preferred source of online information. Mothers and younger parents were more likely to retrieve online information on family policy benefits. With the smartphone in everybody’s pocket, parents seemed to rely on mobile and online content when searching for child health information. Pediatricians are best suited to decide what treatment fits the child or their current medical condition, but nowadays they face increasing numbers of pre-informed parents seeking health information online. Provision of targeted parental education and guidance through the online information jungle could effectively empower parents and smooth personal and digital contacts in the delicate doctor–parent–child triangle.

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.

DOZ047.115: Quality and readability of esophageal atresia information on the Internet

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B R O’Connor ◽  
E Doherty ◽  
F Friedmacher ◽  
L Vernon ◽  
T S Paran
Keyword(s):  
Esophageal Atresia ◽  
Oesophageal Atresia ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
Ease Score ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Google Search

Abstract Introduction Increasingly in pediatric surgical practice, patients, their parents, and surgeons alike use the Internet as an easily and quickly accessible source of information about conditions and their treatment. The quality and reliability of this information may often be unregulated. We aim to objectively assess the online information available relating to esophageal atresia and its management. Methods We performed searches for ‘oesophageal atresia’ and ‘esophageal atresia’ using the Google, Yahoo, and Bing engines to encompass both European and American spellings. We assessed the first 20 results of each search and excluded duplicates or unrelated pages. The DISCERN score and the Health on the Net Foundation Code (HONcode) toolbar were utilized to assess the quality of information on each website. We evaluated readability with the Flesch reading ease (FRE) and the Flesch–Kincaid grade (FKG). Results Of the original 120 hits, 61 were excluded (51 duplicates, 10 unrelated). Out of 59 individual sites reviewed, only 13 sites were HONcode approved. The mean overall DISCERN score was 52.55 (range: 22–78). The mean DISCERN score for the search term ‘oesphageal atresia’ was 57 (range: 22–78) in comparison to 59.03 for ‘esophageal atresia’ (range: 27–78). Google search had the lowest overall mean DISCERN score at 54.83 (range: 35–78), followed by Yahoo at 58.03 (range: 22–78), and Bing with the highest overall mean score of 61.2 (range: 27–78). The majority of websites were graded excellent (≥63) or good (51–62), 43% and 27%, respectively; 20% were scored as fair (39–50), with 10% being either poor (27–38) or very poor (≤26). In terms of readability, the overall Flesch Reading Ease score was 33.02, and the overall Flesch–Kincaid grade level was 10.3. Conclusions The quality of freely available online information relating to esophageal atresia is generally good but may not be accessible to everyone due to being relatively difficult to read. We should direct parents towards comprehensive, high-quality, and easily readable information sources should they wish to supplement their knowledge about esophageal atresia and its management.

scholarly journals P126 An analysis of the quality and readability of online information for osteoarthritis

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kieran Murray ◽  
Timothy Murray ◽  
Candice Low ◽  
Anna O'Rourke ◽  
Douglas J Veale
Keyword(s):  
Grade Level ◽  
English Language ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Scoring Systems ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Flesch Reading Ease ◽  
12Th Grade ◽  
8Th Grade ◽  
Ease Score

Abstract Background Osteoarthritis is the most common cause of disability in people over 65 years old. The readability of of online osteoarthritis information has never been assessed. A 2003 study found the quality of online osteoarthritis information to be poor. This study reviews the quality of online information regarding osteoarthritis in 2018 using three validated scoring systems. Readability is reviewed for the first time, again using three validated tools. Methods The term osteoarthritis was searched across the three most popular English language search engines. The first 25 pages from each search engine were analysed. Duplicate pages, websites featuring paid advertisements, inaccessible pages (behind a pay wall, not available for geographical reasons) and non-text pages were excluded. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Gunning-Fog Index (GFI). Website quality was scored using the the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria and DISCERN criteria. Presence or absence of HONcode certification, age of content, content producer and author characteristics were noted. Results 37 unique websites were suitable for analysis. Readability varied by assessment tool from 8th to 12th grade level. This compares with the recommended 7- 8th grade level. One (2.7%) website met all four JAMA Criteria. Mean DISCERN quality of information for OA websites was “fair”, comparing favourably with the “poor” grading of a 2003 study. HONCode endorsed websites (43.2%) were of a statistically significantly higher quality. Conclusion Quality of online health information for OA is “fair”. 2.7% of websites met JAMA benchmark criteria for quality. Readability was equal to or more difficult than recommendations. HONcode certification was indicative of higher quality, but not readability. Disclosures K. Murray None. T. Murray None. C. Low None. A. O'Rourke None. D.J. Veale None.

Associations Between Migration Background and Media and Information Behavior in Primary School Children

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Dauben ◽  
Katharina S. Weber ◽  
Lisa Nießen ◽  
Marlo Verket ◽  
Olaf Spörkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Digital Media ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Economic Status ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Information Behavior ◽  
Migration Background ◽  
Primary School Children ◽  
The Media ◽  
Media Channels ◽  
3Rd Grade

Abstract Background Children with migration background and from low socio-economic status are at higher risk for overweight. To determine appropriate media channels to possibly reach children with targeted health information, it has to be considered that the media and information behavior of children has changed during the last decades. Objective We examined the media and information behavior of children in low socio-economic districts, focusing on those with migration background. Methods Fourteen 3rd grade classes (n=250 children, 68.0% with migration background) completed a questionnaire regarding their media consumption, which was based on existing validated surveys. Results ≥ 50% of the children watched TV and around 40% used both mobile phones and computers/tablets/internet for ≥1 h/day. Books were the most popular analogue media (61.6% of children), whereas magazines/newspapers and radio (18.4 and 16.0% of children, respectively) were used less frequently. Furthermore, they regularly used internet, TV and their teachers (63.0, 48.8 and 44.8% of children, respectively) as information source. Especially children with compared to those without migration background less likely used the radio (P=0.0002) and their family as information source (P=0.0017). Conclusions Children attending 3rd grade class, especially with migration background, can be addressed through digital media rather than the radio. This may help to sustainably support children outside school with targeted health information.

Health Literacy and Health/Risk Communication

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mackert ◽  
Sara Champlin ◽  
Jisoo Ahn
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Health Literacy ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Health Care Services ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
The United States ◽  
Care Providers

Health literacy—defined as the ability of an individual to obtain, process, understand, and communicate about health information—contributes significantly to health outcomes and costs to the U.S. health-care system. Approximately one-quarter to one-half of U.S. adults struggle with health information, which includes understanding patient education materials, reading medication labels, and communicating with health-care providers. Low health literacy is more common among the elderly, those who speak English as a second language, and those of lower socioeconomic status. In addition to conceptualizing health literacy as an individual-level skill, it can also be considered an organizational or community-level ability. Increased attention to the field of health literacy has resulted in debates about the definition and the best ways to assess health literacy; there is also a strong and growing movement within the field of health literacy research and practice to frame health literacy less as a deficit to overcome and more as an approach to empowering patients and improving outcomes. As health-care providers have recognized the importance of health literacy, workshops, and training programs have been developed and evaluated to improve the care of low-health-literate patients. Similarly, health promotion professionals have developed best practices for reaching low-health-literate audiences with traditional and new digital media, which can also increase access for patients with hearing or visual impairments. Additionally, recent policy changes in the United States, including those related to the Affordable Care Act, contribute to a greater focus and regulation of factors that impact health literacy. Researchers and practitioners together are advancing understanding of health literacy, its relationship to health outcomes and health-care costs, and improved strategies for improving the health of lower health literate patients. Development and review of health literacy pieces can aid in shared decision making and provide insights for patients on various health-care services.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document