Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 38, Issue 11, pp 3269–3274 | Cite as

Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis

  • Burhan Fatih KocyigitEmail author
  • Tuba Tulay Koca
  • Mazlum Serdar Akaltun
Original Article
  • 60 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction/objective

Obtaining online health-related information is becoming increasingly popular among patients. The attainment of information through websites is easy and practical, but there is no mechanism to check the accuracy and quality of this information. This leads to concerns about information from websites. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the quality and readability of ankylosing spondylitis–related websites in this study.

Methods

This is a descriptive study. Websites were searched on a popular search engine with the search term ankylosing spondylitis on March 2, 2019. We recorded the URLs of the first 200 websites listed in the query results. Typologies, quality, and readability were evaluated on these websites. Websites were divided into eight categories (commercial, government, health portal, news, non-profit, professional, scientific journal, and others) according to typology. The JAMA scoring system and the presence of HONcode certification were used to assess the quality. The Flesch-Kincaid grade and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook were used to evaluate the readability.

Results

Of the websites analyzed, 46% were in the high-quality group. We found that scientific journals and news were of higher quality, and commercial and other websites were of poorer quality. The average readability grades of the websites were 8.59 ± 2.42 and 7.33 ± 1.54, which were slightly worse than the recommended value. Additionally, the readability grades were significantly higher on high-quality websites (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The quality of information on websites is variable. High-quality information about ankylosing spondylitis is available online, particularly from scientific journals and news. The poor readability of websites that provide high-quality information is a problem for patients with low health literacy. Editors should take into account readability while aiming to present high-quality information on websites.

Key Points

• Websites have become an important source of health-related information in parallel with the increase in internet use.

• Less than half of the ankylosing spondylitis–related websites (46%) were of high quality according to JAMA scores.

• The average readability grades of the ankylosing spondylitis–related websites were slightly worse than the recommended values.

• High-quality websites had higher readability grades. Therefore, high-quality websites may not be understood by patients with low literacy levels.

• No significant difference was found between the websites on the first page (n = 10) and remaining websites (n = 102) in terms of quality and readability.

Keywords

Ankylosing spondylitis Google Information quality Internet Readability 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

In this study, the researchers did not assess any human participants or animals. Websites that anyone can access were assessed. Therefore, there was no need for the approval of the ethics committee for the study.

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Smith JA (2015) Update on ankylosing spondylitis: current concepts in pathogenesis. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 15:489.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11882-014-0489-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dalyan M, Güner A, Tuncer S, Bilgiç A, Arasil T (1999) Disability in ankylosing spondylitis. Disabil Rehabil 21:74–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zão A, Cantista P (2017) The role of land and aquatic exercise in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review. Rheumatol Int 37:1979–1990.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3829-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amante DJ, Hogan TP, Pagoto SL, English TM, Lapane KL (2015) Access to care and use of the Internet to search for health information: results from the US National Health Interview Survey. J Med Internet Res 17(4):e106.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4126
  5. 5.
    Castleton K, Fong T, Wang-Gillam A, Waqar MA, Jeffe DB, Kehlenbrink L, Gao F, Govindan R (2011) A survey of Internet utilization among patients with cancer. Support Care Cancer 19:1183–1190.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0935-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuringthe quality of medical information on the Internet: caveant lector et view or let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277:1244–1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daraz L, Macdermid JC, Wilkins S, Gibson J, Shaw L (2011) The quality of websites addressing fibromyalgia: an assessment of quality and readability using standardised tools. BMJ Open 1(1):e000152.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000152
  8. 8.
    Basavakumar D, Flegg M, Eccles J, Ghezzi P (2019) Accuracy, completeness and accessibility of online information on fibromyalgia. Rheumatol Int 39:735–742.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-019-04265-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Arif N, Ghezzi P (2018) Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast 37:6–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Manley L, Ghezzi P (2018) The quality of online health information on breast augmentation. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 71:e62–e63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2018.07.023 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chumber S, Huber J, Ghezzi P (2015) A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. Diabetes Educ 41:95–105.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714560772 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor–let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277:1244–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meric F, Bernstam EV, Mirza NQ, Hunt KK, Ames FC, Ross MI, Kuerer HM, Pollock RE, Musen MA, Singletary SE (2002) Breast cancer on the world wide web: cross sectional survey of quality of information and popularity of websites. British Med J 324:577–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD (1998) The health on the net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28:603–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maki A, Evans R, Ghezzi P (2015) Bad news: analysis of the quality of information on influenza prevention returned by Google in English and Italian. Front Immunol 6:616.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2015.00616 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eysenbach G, Kohler C (2002) How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Med J 324:573–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wald HS, Dube CE, Anthony DC (2007) Untangling the Web—the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient Educ Couns 68:218–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gardiner R (2008) The transition from ‘informed patient’ care to ‘patient informed’ care. Stud Health Technol Inf 137:241–256Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yaqub M, Ghezzi P (2015) Adding dimensions to the analysis of the quality of health information of websites returned by Google: cluster analysis identifies patterns of websites according to their classification and the type of intervention described. Front Public Health 3:204.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2015.00204 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brosnan S, Barron E, Sahm LJ (2012) Health literacy and the clozapine patient. Perspect Public Health 132:39–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dy CJ, Taylor SA, Patel RM, McCarthy MM, Roberts TR, Daluiski A (2012) Does the quality, accuracy, and readability of information about lateral epicondylitis on the internet vary with the search term used? Hand (N Y) 7:420–425.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11552-012-9443-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO (2010) A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 40:292–296.  https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Burhan Fatih Kocyigit
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tuba Tulay Koca
    • 1
  • Mazlum Serdar Akaltun
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationKahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam UniversityKahramanmaraşTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationNecip Fazıl State HospitalKahramanmaraşTurkey

Personalised recommendations