Thematic coverage and readability of online patient information on cochlear implant care.
Cochlear implantation
Internet search
Patient information
Quality
Readability
Thematic coverage
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:
06 May 2024
06 May 2024
Historique:
received:
03
03
2024
accepted:
15
04
2024
medline:
6
5
2024
pubmed:
6
5
2024
entrez:
5
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The treatment of patients with a cochlear implant (CI) is usually an elective, complex and interdisciplinary process. As an important source of information, patients often access the internet prior to treatment. The quality of internet-based information regarding thematic coverage has not yet been analysed in detail. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyse the information on CI care available on the internet regarding its thematic coverage and readability. Eight search phrases related to CI care were defined as part of the study. A checklist for completeness of thematic coverage was then created for each search phrase. The current German CI clinical practice guideline and the white paper on CI care in Germany were used as a basis. As a further parameter, readability was assessed using Flesch Reading Ease Scores. The search phrases were used for an internet search with Google. The first ten results were then analysed with regard to thematic coverage, readability and the provider of the website. A total of 80 websites were identified, which were set up by 54 different providers (16 providers were found in multiple entries) from eight different provider groups. The average completeness of thematic coverage was 41.6 ± 28.2%. Readability according to the Flesch Reading Ease Score was categorised as "hard to read" on average (34.7 ± 14.2 points, range: 0-72). There was a negative statistically significant correlation between the thematic coverage of content and readability (Spearman's rank correlation: r = - 0.413, p = 0.00014). The completeness of thematic coverage of information on CI care available on the internet was highly heterogeneous and had a significant negative correlation with the readability. This result should be taken into account by both the providers of internet information and by patients when using internet-based information on CI care and help to further improve the quality of web-based information.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38705897
doi: 10.1007/s00405-024-08694-x
pii: 10.1007/s00405-024-08694-x
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Cochlear Implants (2021) National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/cochlear-implants . Accessed 26 Feb 2024
Weißbuch Cochlea Implantat (CI)-Versorgung.[orig. in German: White paper on cochlear implant (CI) care] Bonn 2021. https://cdn.hno.org/media/2021/ci-weissbuch-20-inkl-anlagen-datenblocke-und-zeitpunkte-datenerhebung-mit-logo-05-05-21.pdf . Accessed 26 Feb 2024
Google Search Statistics. https://www.internetlivestats.com/google-search-statistics/ . Accessed 16 Jun 2023
Wong MKY, Sivasegaran D, Choo CSC, Nah SA (2018) Parental internet use and health information seeking behavior comparing elective and emergency pediatric surgical situations. Eur J Pediatr Surg 28(1):89–95. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1604021
doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1604021
pubmed: 28662533
Dumitru RC, Bürkle T, Potapov S, Lausen B, Wiese B, Prokosch HU (2007) Use and perception of internet for health related purposes in Germany: results of a national survey. Int J Public Health 52(5):275–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-007-6067-0
doi: 10.1007/s00038-007-6067-0
pubmed: 18030943
Andreassen HK, Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Chronaki CE, Dumitru RC, Pudule I, Santana S, Voss H, Wynn R (2007) European citizens’ use of E-health services: a study of seven countries. BMC Public Health 7:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-53
doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-7-53
pubmed: 17425798
pmcid: 1855923
Kuehn BM (2013) More than one-third of US individuals use the Internet to self-diagnose. JAMA 309(8):756–757. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.629
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.629
pubmed: 23443421
Zhang Y, Sun Y, Xie B (2015) Quality of health information for consumers on the web: a systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. J Am Soc Inf Sci 66:2071–2084
Raj S, Sharma VL, Singh AJ, Goel S (2016) Evaluation of quality and readability of health information websites identified through India’s major search engines. Adv Prev Med 2016:4815285. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/4815285
doi: 10.1155/2016/4815285
pubmed: 27119025
pmcid: 4826908
Yılmaz FH, Tutar MS, Arslan D, Çeri A (2021) Readability, understandability, and quality of retinopathy of prematurity information on the web. Birth Defects Res 113(12):901–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdr2.1883
doi: 10.1002/bdr2.1883
pubmed: 33594835
Irwin SC, Lennon DT, Stanley CP, Sheridan GA, Walsh JC (2021) Ankle conFUSION: the quality and readability of information on the internet relating to ankle arthrodesis. Surgeon J R Coll Surg Edinb Irel 19(6):e507–e511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.001
doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.12.001
Al-Jefri M, Evans R, Uchyigit G, Ghezzi P (2018) What is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users. Front Med (Lausanne). 5:260. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2018.00260
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2018.00260
pubmed: 30294599
pmcid: 6158347
AWM-Leitlinie Cochlea-Implantat-Versorgung und zentral auditorische Implantate. Register-Nr. 017/071. .[orig. in German: German clinical practice guideline on cochlear implant care] https://register.awmf.org/de/leitlinien/detail/017-071 . Accessed 26 Feb 2024
Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532
doi: 10.1037/h0057532
pubmed: 18867058
www.google.de
Sanad SA, Mokhtar AM, Alharbi MO, Bukhari AF, Zawawi F (2023) Qualitative assessment of quality and readability of patient-directed online resources for cochlear implants in children. Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 169(1):143–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/ohn.251
doi: 10.1002/ohn.251
pubmed: 36939594
Walsh TM, Volsko TA (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53(10):1310–1315
pubmed: 18811992
Bakerjian D (2023) Personal Health Literacy. PSNet. https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/health-literacy#:~:text=Written%20materials%20should%20be%20at,based%20instructions%2C%20and%20include%20pictures . Accessed 26 Feb 2024
Bruce JG, Tucholka JL, Steffens NM, Neuman HB (2015) Quality of online information to support patient decision-making in breast cancer surgery. J Surg Oncol 112(6):575–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24046
doi: 10.1002/jso.24046
pubmed: 26417898
pmcid: 4675620
Gurr A, Schwaab M, Hansen S, Noack V, Dazert S (2009) Informationsverhalten von HNO-Patienten im Internet [Use of the internet for health information by ENT patients]. HNO 57(5):473–479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-009-1897-0 . (German)
doi: 10.1007/s00106-009-1897-0
pubmed: 19387598
Nogueira JF, Rodrigo Hermann D, Solferini Silva ML, Pires Santos F, Nagata Pignatari SS (2009) Cassol Stamm A Is the information available on the web influencing the way parents see ENT surgical procedures? Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 75:517–523
doi: 10.1016/S1808-8694(15)30490-0