Otosclerosis online: a critical analysis of quality, reliability, readability and content of otosclerosis information.
Comprehension
Health literacy
Internet use
Otosclerosis
Readability
Stapes surgery
Journal
European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1434-4726
Titre abrégé: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9002937
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2023
01 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
10
07
2023
accepted:
23
10
2023
medline:
1
11
2023
pubmed:
1
11
2023
entrez:
1
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Several therapeutic options are usually discussed for otosclerosis management. Patients seek medical advice from an ENT specialist but are also increasingly using the internet for medical issues. This study intends to assess readability and quality of websites with information on otosclerosis. This is a cross-sectional study performed in a tertiary care centre. The results of the first two pages of a Google search with the keyword "otosclerosis" were reviewed by two independent investigators. Readability was assessed with the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Gunning Fog Index. For quality and reliability assessment, the 16-item DISCERN instrument was used. Spearman's coefficient was used for correlations, and multivariate analyses of variance were used to assess differences. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated with concordance correlation coefficient. 18 websites were included. Two websites (11.0%) were authored by academic institutions, 5/18 (28%) by government agencies, 6/18 (33%) by professional organisations and 5/18 (28%) were medical information websites. The mean DISCERN score of the 18 websites was 40.8 ± 6.7/80 (range 28.7-51.7), corresponding to "fair" quality. The mean FRES score was 43.27 ± 10.6, and the mean FKGL was 11.43 ± 2.30, corresponding to "difficult to read". The mean Gunning Fog index was 12.90 ± 2.19 (range 9.81-18.20), corresponding to a "college freshman" level. This study shows that internet information on otosclerosis has an overall low readability, while the quality is heterogeneous and varies from "poor" to "good". Efforts should be made to improve the readability of otosclerosis websites.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37910206
doi: 10.1007/s00405-023-08311-3
pii: 10.1007/s00405-023-08311-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Ealy M, Smith RJH (2011) Otosclerosis. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 70:122–129. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322488
doi: 10.1159/000322488
pubmed: 21358194
Ramsay HA, Linthicum FH (1994) Mixed hearing loss in otosclerosis: indication for long-term follow-up. Am J Otol 15:536–539
pubmed: 8588610
Merkus P, van Loon MC, Smit CF et al (2011) Decision making in advanced otosclerosis: an evidence-based strategy. Laryngoscope 121:1935–1941. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.21904
doi: 10.1002/lary.21904
pubmed: 22024848
Internet and social media users in the world 2022. In: Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/617136/digital-population-worldwide/ . Accessed 26 Oct 2022
Mueller J, Jay C, Harper S et al (2017) Web use for symptom appraisal of physical health conditions: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res 19:e202. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6755
doi: 10.2196/jmir.6755
pubmed: 28611017
pmcid: 5487739
Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa E-R (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 287:2691–2700. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
doi: 10.1001/jama.287.20.2691
pubmed: 12020305
Danino J, Muzaffar J, Mitchell-Innes A et al (2016) Quality of information available via the internet for patients with otological conditions. Otol Neurotol 37:1063–1065. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000001151
doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000001151
pubmed: 27525619
Flesch R (1979) How to write plain english. Harper&Row, New York
Gunning R (1974) The art of readable writing. McGraw Hill Book Co, New York
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53:105–111. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.53.2.105
doi: 10.1136/jech.53.2.105
pubmed: 10396471
pmcid: 1756830
McInnes N, Haglund BJA (2011) Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care 36:173–189. https://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2010.542529
doi: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529
pubmed: 21332302
Blake DM, Svider PF, Carniol ET et al (2013) Malpractice in otology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 149:554–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599813498696
doi: 10.1177/0194599813498696
pubmed: 23894144
Svider PF, Husain Q, Kovalerchik O et al (2013) Determining legal responsibility in otolaryngology: a review of 44 trials since 2008. Am J Otolaryngol 34:699–705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.12.005
pubmed: 23332297
National Institutes of Health (2015) Clear & Simple. In: National Institutes of Health (NIH). https://www.nih.gov/institutes-nih/nih-office-director/office-communications-public-liaison/clear-communication/clear-simple
Kutner M, Greenberg E, Baer J (2006) A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century. NCES 2006-470. ED Pubs, P
Weiss BD et al (1998) Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. Report of the national work group on literacy and health. J Fam Pract 46:168–176
Bojrab DI, Fritz C, Babu S, Lin KF (2020) A critical analysis of the information available online for Ménière’s disease. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 162:329–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819901150
doi: 10.1177/0194599819901150
pubmed: 31986955
McKearney TC, McKearney RM (2013) The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 77:894–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.03.021
pubmed: 23587675
Pusz MD, Brietzke SE (2012) How good is Google? The quality of otolaryngology information on the internet. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147:462–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812447733
doi: 10.1177/0194599812447733
pubmed: 22597577
McKearney RM, MacKinnon RC, Smith M, Baker R (2018) Tinnitus information online—does it ring true? J Laryngol Otol 132:984–989. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215118001792
doi: 10.1017/S0022215118001792
pubmed: 30353795
Joury A, Joraid A, Alqahtani F et al (2018) The variation in quality and content of patient-focused health information on the Internet for otitis media. Child Care Health Dev 44:221–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12524
doi: 10.1111/cch.12524
pubmed: 28913967