Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Internet is a major source of health information for gynecologic cancer patients. In this study, we systematically explore common Google search terms related to gynecologic cancer and calculate readability of top resulting websites. We used Google AdWords Keyword Planner to generate a list of commonly searched keywords related to gynecologic oncology, which were sorted into five groups (cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine cancer, vulvar cancer, vaginal cancer) using five patient education websites from sgo.org. Each keyword was Google searched to create a list of top websites. The Python programming language (version 3.5.1) was used to describe frequencies of keywords, top-level domains (TLDs), domains, and readability of top websites using four validated formulae. Of the estimated 1,846,950 monthly searches resulting in 62,227 websites, the most common was cancer.org. The most common TLD was *.com. Most websites were above the eighth-grade reading level recommended by the American Medical Association (AMA) and the National Institute of Health (NIH). The SMOG Index was the most reliable formula. The mean grade level readability for all sites using SMOG was 9.4 ± 2.3, with 23.9% of sites falling at or below the eighth-grade reading level. The first ten results for each Google keyword were easiest to read with results beyond the first page of Google being consistently more difficult. Keywords related to gynecologic malignancies are Google-searched frequently. Most websites are difficult to read without a high school education. This knowledge may help gynecologic oncology providers adequately meet the needs of their patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perrin A, Duggan M (2015) Americans’ Internet access: 2000–2015. Pew Research Center Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping the World:1–12

  2. Fox S (2011) Health topics. Pew Research Center Pew Internet and American Life Project

  3. Purcell K, Brenner J, Lee R (2012) Search engine use 2012. Pew Research Center Pew Internet and American Life Project (http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Search-Engine-Use-2012.aspx)

  4. Lee K, Kreshnik H, Jeffery H, Lynne E (2014) Dr. Google and the consumer: a qualitative study exploring the navigational needs and online health information-seeking behaviors of consumers with chronic health conditions. J Med Internet Res 16(12):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Gynecologists, American College of Obstetricians and (2016) Health literacy to promote quality of care. Committee Opinion No. 676. Obstet Gynecol 128:183–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L (2006) A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Heal Educ Behav 33(3):352–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105277329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. National Institutes of Health (2007) How to write easy to read health materials. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/etr.html. Accessed 26 March 2017

  8. Ingledew P-A, El-Zammar D, Scali E, Brar B, Lin J (2014) Caught in the web: the quality of online resources for cancer patients. Int J Radiat Oncol 90(1):S604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2014.05.1808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Society, American Cancer (2016) Cancer Facts and Figures. http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index. Accessed

  10. Baazeem M, Abenhaim H (2014) Google and women’s health-related issues: what does the search engine data reveal? Online J Public Health Informatics 6(2):187

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fu LY, Zook K, Spoehr-Labutta Z, Hu P, Joseph JG (2016) Search engine ranking, quality, and content of web pages that are critical versus noncritical of human papillomavirus vaccine. J Adolesc Health 58(1):33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. McLeod J, Yu I, Ingledew PA (2016) Peering into the deep: characterizing the Internet search patterns of patients with gynecologic cancers. J Canc Educ 32:85–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. https://adwords.google.com/home/tools/keyword-planner/. Accessed

  14. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP Jr, Rogers RL, Chissom BS (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN No. RBR-8-75 (Research Branch)

  15. Dale E, Chall JS (1948) A formula for predicting readability: instructions. Educ Res Bull 27(2):37–54

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gunning R (1969) The fog index after twenty years. Int J Bus Commun 6(2):3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194366900600202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Laughlin GHM (1969) SMOG grading-a new readability formula. J Read 12(8):639–646

    Google Scholar 

  18. Team, R Core (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna URL https://www.R-project.org/

    Google Scholar 

  19. Fitzsimmons PR, Michael BD, Hulley JL, Scott GO (2010) A readability assessment of online Parkinson’s disease information. R Coll Physicians Edinburgh 40(4):292–296. https://doi.org/10.4997/JRCPE.2010.401

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Freda MC, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1999) Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 93(5):771–774

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Schreuders EH, Grobbee EJ, Kuipers EJ, Spaander MCW, Veldhuyzen van Zanten SJO (2017) Variable quality and readability of patient-oriented websites on colorectal cancer screening. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 15(1):79–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2016.06.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Rosenberg SA, Francis DM, Hullet CR, Morris ZS, Brower JV, Anderson BM, Bradley KA, Bassetti MF, Kimple RJ (2017) Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population. Pract Radiat Oncol 7:57–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Azer SA, Alghofaili MM, Alsultan RM, Alrumaih NS (2017) Accuracy and readability of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. J Cancer Educ:1–19

  24. Kamvar M, Baluja S (2006) A large scale study of wireless search behavior: Google Mobile Search. CHI ‘06 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems:701–709

  25. Prevention, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Centers for Disease Control and. 2010. Simply put a guide for creating easy-to-understand materials. Strategic and Proactive Communication Branch 3

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following abstract was displayed as a poster during the Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists (WAGO) 2017 Annual Meeting. All presented WAGO abstracts are published in the October issue of Gynecologic Oncology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 529 South Jackson Street, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA

    Alexandra Martin, J. Ryan Stewart & Erin Medlin

  2. Department of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville School of Public Health and Information Sciences, Louisville, KY, USA

    Jeremy Gaskins

Authors
  1. Alexandra Martin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Ryan Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeremy Gaskins
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erin Medlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexandra Martin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethics Approval and Consent to participate

The study was reviewed by the University of Louisville Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt from approval, as it does not meet the “Common Rule” definition of human subjects’ research.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Martin, A., Stewart, J.R., Gaskins, J. et al. A Systematic Assessment of Google Search Queries and Readability of Online Gynecologic Oncology Patient Education Materials. J Canc Educ 34, 435–440 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1319-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-017-1319-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation