Quality, Reliability, and Readability of Online Information on Rhinoplasty.
Journal
The Journal of craniofacial surgery
ISSN: 1536-3732
Titre abrégé: J Craniofac Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9010410
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Sep 2021
01 Sep 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
4
2
2021
medline:
16
9
2021
entrez:
3
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With an ever-growing reliance on technology, patients are increasingly resorting to websites for their medical information. This study evaluates the readability, quality, and reliability of online information available on rhinoplasty provided by academic centers or impartial reference sources and private practice websites. A cross-sectional study from July to August 2019 was performed looking at the first 42 informational websites on a Google search for the term nose job. Websites were categorized as belonging to impartial sources and academic centers or private practices. Two independent reviewers evaluated websites on their quality, readability, reliability, and technical qualities using several validated measures. The Health on the Net code (HONcode) and DISCERN questionnaire were used to assess the quality and reliability of the information presented on the websites. Significance tests were performed using SPSS Version 25. Of the 42 websites, 23 were impartial sources or academic centers (54.8%) and 19 were private practice websites (47.6%). The mean (±SD) for the HONcode and DISCERN scores were 5.7 (±2.8) and 2.6 (±0.7), respectively. The mean (SD) HONcode scores for impartial sources and private practice websites were 7.1 (±2.9) and 4.1 (±1.5), respectively (P < 0.001). The mean (±SD) DISCERN scores were 2.9 (±0.7) and 2.3 (±0.5), respectively (P = 0.009). There was no statistically significant difference in scores for readability and technical qualities. While impartial sources and academic centers score higher on quality and reliability scores, their scores were also low. These findings are concerning as many consumers use the information provided by online websites to guide decisions regarding their health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
With an ever-growing reliance on technology, patients are increasingly resorting to websites for their medical information. This study evaluates the readability, quality, and reliability of online information available on rhinoplasty provided by academic centers or impartial reference sources and private practice websites.
METHODS
METHODS
A cross-sectional study from July to August 2019 was performed looking at the first 42 informational websites on a Google search for the term nose job. Websites were categorized as belonging to impartial sources and academic centers or private practices. Two independent reviewers evaluated websites on their quality, readability, reliability, and technical qualities using several validated measures. The Health on the Net code (HONcode) and DISCERN questionnaire were used to assess the quality and reliability of the information presented on the websites. Significance tests were performed using SPSS Version 25.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 42 websites, 23 were impartial sources or academic centers (54.8%) and 19 were private practice websites (47.6%). The mean (±SD) for the HONcode and DISCERN scores were 5.7 (±2.8) and 2.6 (±0.7), respectively. The mean (SD) HONcode scores for impartial sources and private practice websites were 7.1 (±2.9) and 4.1 (±1.5), respectively (P < 0.001). The mean (±SD) DISCERN scores were 2.9 (±0.7) and 2.3 (±0.5), respectively (P = 0.009). There was no statistically significant difference in scores for readability and technical qualities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While impartial sources and academic centers score higher on quality and reliability scores, their scores were also low. These findings are concerning as many consumers use the information provided by online websites to guide decisions regarding their health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33534323
doi: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000007487
pii: 00001665-900000000-92888
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2019-2023Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by Mutaz B. Habal, MD.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Anderson M PA, Jiang J, Kumar M. 10% of Americans Don’t Use the Internet. Who Are They? Pew Research Center. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/22/some-americans-dont-use-the-internet-who-are-they/. Published 2019. Accessed August 18, 2019
Fox S. The social life of health information 2011. Pew Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC; 2011
Fox S, Rainie L. Vital decisions: A Pew Internet health report. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project; 2002.
Szychta P, Zieliński T, Rykała J, et al. Role of the internet in communication between patient and surgeon before rhinoplasty. J Plastic Surg Hand Surg 2012; 46:248–251.
Neligan PC, Buck II DW. Core Procedures in Plastic Surgery. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2013
Berger M, Wagner TH, Baker LC. Internet use and stigmatized illness. Soc Sci Med 2005; 61:1821–1827.
Hesse BW, Nelson DE, Kreps GL, et al. Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165:2618–2624.
Brodie M, Flournoy RE, Altman DE, et al. Health Information, The Internet, And The Digital Divide: Despite recent improvements, Americans’ access to the Internet—and to the growing body of health information there—remains uneven. Health Affairs 2000; 19:255–265.
Alos L, Moyano S, Nadal A, et al. Human papillomaviruses are identified in a subgroup of sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas with favorable outcome. Cancer 2009; 115:2701–2709.
Kim P, Eng TR, Deering MJ, et al. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites. BMJ 1999; 318:647–649.
Charnock D. The DISCERN Handbook. Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Radcliffe: University of Oxford and The British Library; 1998.
Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004; 19:440–446.
Online D. The DISCERN Instrument. Available at: http://www.discern.org.uk/discern_instrument.php. Published 1997. Accessed August 14, 2019
Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer J-R, et al. The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 1998; 28:603–610.
Health on the Net Foundation. The commitment to reliable health and medical information on the Internet Available at: https://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Patients/Visitor/visitor.html. Published May 2 2017. Accessed August 14, 2019
Kusec S, Brborovic O, Schillinger D. Diabetes websites accredited by the Health On the Net Foundation Code of Conduct: readable or not? Stud Health Technol Inform 2003; 95:655–660.
HubSpot. How Strong Is Your Website? Available at: https://website.grader.com/. Published 2019. Accessed July 1, 2019
Rayess H, Zuliani GF, Gupta A, et al. Critical analysis of the quality, readability, and technical aspects of online information provided for neck-lifts. JAMA Facial Plast Surg 2017; 19:115–120.
Hayes PM, Jenkins JJ, Walker BJ. Reliability of the Flesch readability formulas. J Appl Psychol 1950; 34:22.
Flesch R. Flesch–Kincaid readability test. Retrieved October 2007; 26:2007.
Gunning R. The fog index after twenty years. J Business Commun 1969; 6:3–13.
Mc Laughlin GH. SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Read 1969; 12:639–646.
Coleman M, Liau TL. A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. J Appl Psychol 1975; 60:283.
Senter R, Smith EA. Automated Readability Index. Cincinnati, OH: Cincinnati University; 1967
Klare GR. Assessing readability. Reading Res Quart 1974; 10:62–102.
Svider PF, Agarwal N, Choudhry OJ, et al. Readability assessment of online patient education materials from academic otolaryngology–head and neck surgery departments. Am J Otolaryngol 2013; 34:31–35.
Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, et al. Readability assessment of patient education materials from the American Academy of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery Foundation. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2012; 147:466–471.
Zhou S, Jeong H, Green PA. How consistent are the best-known readability equations in estimating the readability of design standards? IEEE Trans Professional Commun 2017; 60:97–111.
Santos PJF, Daar DA, Paydar KZ, et al. Readability of online materials for rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 2018; 7:89.
Haymes AT. The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the Internet. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 76:143–149.
Oremule B, Patel A, Orekoya O, et al. Quality and reliability of youtube videos as a source of patient information on rhinoplasty. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2019; 145:282–283.
Gerber BS, Eiser AR. The patient-physician relationship in the Internet age: future prospects and the research agenda. J Med Int Res 2001; 3:e15.
McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63:24–28.
Kruzik N. Benefits of preoperative education for adult elective surgery patients. AORN J 2009; 90:381–387.
Walker J, Brooksby A, McInerny J, et al. Patient perceptions of hospital care: building confidence, faith and trust. J Nurs Manag 1998; 6:193–200.
Johansson K, Nuutila L, Virtanen H, et al. Preoperative education for orthopaedic patients: systematic review. JAdv Nurs 2005; 50:212–223.
National Institutes of Health . How to write easy to read health materials. MedlinePlus. 2013. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed August 31, 2019
Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Sabourin V, et al. A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med 2013; 173:1257–1259.
Surgeons ASoP. 2016 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. ASPS National Clearinghouse of Plastic Surgery Procedural Statistics. 2016
Hoppe IC, Ahuja NK, Ingargiola MJ, et al. A survey of patient comprehension of readily accessible online educational material regarding plastic surgery procedures. Aesthet Surg J 2013; 30:436–442.
Jacobson TA, Thomas DM, Morton FJ, et al. Use of a low-literacy patient education tool to enhance pneumococcal vaccination rates: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999; 282:646–650.
Share NM. Search Engine Market Share. Available at: https://netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?options=%7B%22filter%22%3A%7B%22%24and%22%3A%5B%7B%22deviceType%22%3A%7B%22%24in%22%3A%5B%22Desktop%2Flaptop%22%5D%7D%7D%5D%7D%2C%22dateLabel%22%3A%22Trend%22%2C%22attributes%22%3A%22share%22%2C%22group%22%3A%22searchEngine%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%7B%22share%22%3A-1%7D%2C%22id%22%3A%22searchEnginesDesktop%22%2C%22dateInterval%22%3A%22Monthly%22%2C%22dateStart%22%3A%222018-08%22%2C%22dateEnd%22%3A%222019-07%22%2C%22segments%22%3A%22-1000%22%7D. Published 2019. Accessed August 26, 2019
Purcell K, Brenner J, Rainie L; Pew Research Center. Search engine use 2012. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2012/PIP_Search_Engine_Use_2012.pdf. Published March 9, 2012. Accessed August 31, 2019