Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the informational content, readability, suitability and comprehensibility of websites offering educational information about monogenic diabetes available to patients. The top 20 results from 15 queries in four search engines were screened. Content analysis was performed by two independent coders. Readability was determined using Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Simplified Measure of Goobledygook (SMOG). The Comprehensibility Assessment of Materials (SAM + CAM) scale was utilized to evaluate website suitability and comprehensibility. Only 2% (N = 29) of 1200 screened websites met inclusion criteria. Content analysis showed that 16 websites presented information on at least the most common forms of MODY (1, 2 and 3), four addressed the utility of genetic counseling, and none included support resources for patients. All websites exceeded the consensus readability level (6th grade) as assessed by FKGL (10.1 grade) and SMOG (12.8 ± 1.5 grades). Although the majority (N = 20) of websites had an overall “adequate” to “superior” quality score (SAM + CAM score > = 40%), more than one-third scored “not suitable” in categories of content, literacy demand, graphics, and learning motivation. The online educational resources for monogenic diabetes have a high readability level and require improvement in ease of use and comprehensibility for patients with diabetes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes. (2016). Diabetes Care, 39 (Suppl 1), S13–S22. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-S005.
Agarwal, N., Hansberry, D. R., Sabourin, V., Tomei, K. L., & Prestigiacomo, C. J. (2013). A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(13), 1257–1259. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060.
Albert, T. (2000). Written information for patients. Lancet, 356(9227), 434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73584-4.
Alexa. (2016). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved 01/07, 2016, from http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Computers/Internet/Searching/Search_Engines.
Boulos, M. N. (2005). British internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable? Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 7(3), 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2005.7.528.
Center, T. P. R. (2013). Health Online 2013. Retrieved 01/26, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/.
Chumber, S., Huber, J., & Ghezzi, P. (2015). A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. The Diabetes Educator, 41(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714560772.
Cowie, C. C., & Eberhardt, M. S. (1995). Sociodemographic characteristics of persons with diabetes. Diabetes in America, 2, 85–116.
Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1985). Teaching patients with low literacy skills: Lippincott, Philadelphia.
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(20), 2691–2700.
Finnie, R. K., Felder, T. M., Linder, S. K., & Mullen, P. D. (2010). Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. Journal of Cancer Education, 25(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0.
Fitzmaurice, D. A., & Adams, J. L. (2000). A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension, 14(4), 259–262.
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.
Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior, 33(3), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105277329.
Gimenez-Perez, G., Caixas, A., Gimenez-Palop, O., Gonzalez-Clemente, J. M., & Mauricio, D. (2005). Dissemination of 'patient-oriented evidence that matters' on the internet: the case of type 2 diabetes treatment. Diabetic Medicine, 22(6), 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01522.x.
Hattersley, A., Bruining, J., Shield, J., Njolstad, P., & Donaghue, K. C. (2009). The diagnosis and management of monogenic diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatric Diabetes, 10(Suppl 12), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5448.2009.00571.x.
American Medical Association. (1999). Health literacy: report of the council on scientific affairs. Ad hoc committee on health literacy for the council on scientific affairs. JAMA, 281(6), 552–557.
Helitzer, D., Hollis, C., Cotner, J., & Oestreicher, N. (2009). Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control, 16(1), 70–78.
Hernandez, L. M. (2009). Health literacy, eHealth, and communication: putting the consumer first: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Hutchinson, N., Baird, G. L., & Garg, M. (2016). Examining the reading level of internet medical information for common internal medicine diagnoses. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(6), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.008.
Kim, S., Love, F., Quistberg, D. A., & Shea, J. A. (2004). Association of health literacy with self-management behavior in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 27(12), 2980–2982.
Kusec, S., Brborovic, O., & Schillinger, D. (2003). Diabetes websites accredited by the health on the net foundation code of conduct: readable or not? Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 95, 655–660.
Ley, P., & Florio, T. (1996). The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 1(1), 7–28.
Mc Laughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
Overland, J. E., Hoskins, P. L., McGill, M. J., & Yue, D. K. (1993). Low literacy: a problem in diabetes education. Diabetic Medicine, 10(9), 847–850.
Pauer, F., Litzkendorf, S., Gobel, J., Storf, H., Zeidler, J., & Graf von der Schulenburg, J. M. (2017). Rare diseases on the internet: an assessment of the quality of online information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e23. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7056.
Ryan, L., Logsdon, M. C., McGill, S., Stikes, R., Senior, B., Helinger, B., et al. (2014). Evaluation of printed health education materials for use by low-education families. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(4), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12076.
Schillinger, D., Grumbach, K., Piette, J., Wang, F., Osmond, D., Daher, C., et al. (2002). Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA, 288(4), 475–482.
Shepherd, M. (2003). ‘I'm Amazed I've been able to come off injections’: patients' Perceptions of genetic testing in diabetes. Practical Diabetes International, 20(9), 338–342.
Shepherd, M., & Hattersley, A. T. (2004). I don't feel like a diabetic any more': The impact of stopping insulin in patients with maturity onset diabetes of the young following genetic testing. Clinical Medicine (London, England), 4(2), 144–147.
Shields, B. M., Hicks, S., Shepherd, M. H., Colclough, K., Hattersley, A. T., & Ellard, S. (2010). Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY): How many cases are we missing? Diabetologia, 53(12), 2504–2508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-010-1799-4.
Thakurdesai, P. A., Kole, P. L., & Pareek, R. P. (2004). Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on internet. Patient Education and Counseling, 53(3), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001.
Thomson, M. D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2007). Readability and cultural sensitivity of web-based patient decision aids for cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 32(4), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230701780408.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Web Standards and Usability Guidelines. (2016). Retrieved 3/8, 2016, from https://guidelines.usability.gov/.
van Esch, S. C., Cornel, M. C., & Snoek, F. J. (2006). Type 2 diabetes and inheritance: what information do diabetes organizations provide on the internet? Diabetic Medicine, 23(11), 1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01963.x.
Walsh, T. M., & Volsko, T. A. (2008). Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respiratory Care, 53(10), 1310–1315.
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): Web accessibility standards and guidelines (2016). Retrieved 3/8, 2016, from https://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html.
Weintraub, D., Maliski, S. L., Fink, A., Choe, S., & Litwin, M. S. (2004). Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Education and Counseling, 55(2), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.003.
Weymann, N., Harter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2015). Quality of online information on type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Health Promotion International, 30(4), 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau019.
Funding
This study was funded by NIH U01 grant HG007775.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Yue Guan, Kristin A. Maloney, Debra L. Roter and Toni I. Pollin declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human Studies and Informed Consent
No human studies were carried out by the authors for this article. For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Animal Studies
No animal studies were carried out by the authors for this article.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guan, Y., Maloney, K.A., Roter, D.L. et al. Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes. J Genet Counsel 27, 608–615 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0155-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0155-y