Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Visual Accessibility of Patient Education Websites for Laser Refractive Surgery.

IF 1.7 4区医学 Q3 OPHTHALMOLOGY

Ophthalmic epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-05-04 DOI:10.1080/09286586.2025.2500014

David Mothy, Aneesh P Reddy, Charlene W Cai, Hassaam S Choudhry, Mohammad H Dastjerdi

{"title":"Assessing the Readability, Quality, and Visual Accessibility of Patient Education Websites for Laser Refractive Surgery.","authors":"David Mothy, Aneesh P Reddy, Charlene W Cai, Hassaam S Choudhry, Mohammad H Dastjerdi","doi":"10.1080/09286586.2025.2500014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To assess the usability of patient education websites for refractive surgery through an analysis of readability, accountability, subjective quality, and visual accessibility.Methods: 50 patient education websites for five refractive surgery modalities were gathered from an incognito Google search and categorized by authorship category: institutional, medical organization, or private practice. Each website was assessed for readability, accountability using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, subjective quality using the DISCERN instrument, and visual accessibility was assessed using the Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE).Results: The mean reading grade across all websites was 11.02, exceeding the American Medical Association's recommended 6th-grade level (p < .001). Institutional websites were the most readable (10.32, p = 0.005) while private practice sites were the least (11.74, p = 0.015). The average JAMA score was 1.52 with no website meeting all four accountability criteria. Websites from medical organizations had significantly higher JAMA scores (1.94, p = 0.049). The average DISCERN score was 51.97 with no differences between authorship categories. Websites had an average of 87.84 visual accessibility violations.Conclusions: Available patient education websites for refractive surgery may suffer from poor readability, quality, and visual accessibility which may limit their usability.","PeriodicalId":19607,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmic epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09286586.2025.2500014","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the usability of patient education websites for refractive surgery through an analysis of readability, accountability, subjective quality, and visual accessibility.

Methods: 50 patient education websites for five refractive surgery modalities were gathered from an incognito Google search and categorized by authorship category: institutional, medical organization, or private practice. Each website was assessed for readability, accountability using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark, subjective quality using the DISCERN instrument, and visual accessibility was assessed using the Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool (WAVE).

Results: The mean reading grade across all websites was 11.02, exceeding the American Medical Association's recommended 6th-grade level (p < .001). Institutional websites were the most readable (10.32, p = 0.005) while private practice sites were the least (11.74, p = 0.015). The average JAMA score was 1.52 with no website meeting all four accountability criteria. Websites from medical organizations had significantly higher JAMA scores (1.94, p = 0.049). The average DISCERN score was 51.97 with no differences between authorship categories. Websites had an average of 87.84 visual accessibility violations.

Conclusions: Available patient education websites for refractive surgery may suffer from poor readability, quality, and visual accessibility which may limit their usability.

查看原文本刊更多论文

评估激光屈光手术患者教育网站的可读性、质量和视觉可及性。

目的：通过分析易读性、可问责性、主观质量和视觉可及性来评估屈光手术患者教育网站的可用性。方法：通过匿名谷歌搜索收集5种屈光手术方式的50个患者教育网站，并按作者类别进行分类：机构、医疗组织或私人执业。使用美国医学协会杂志（JAMA）基准评估每个网站的可读性、问责性，使用DISCERN工具评估主观质量，使用网络可访问性评估工具（WAVE）评估视觉可访问性。结果：所有网站的平均阅读分数为11.02分，超过美国医学协会推荐的6年级水平（p = 0.005），而私人诊所网站的平均阅读分数最低（11.74分，p = 0.015）。JAMA的平均得分为1.52，没有网站符合所有四个问责标准。医疗机构网站的JAMA评分显著高于其他网站（1.94,p = 0.049）。平均辨别得分为51.97分，作者类别之间没有差异。网站平均有87.84个视觉无障碍违规。结论：现有屈光手术患者教育网站的可读性、质量和视觉可及性较差，限制了网站的可用性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ophthalmic epidemiology 医学-眼科学

CiteScore

3.70

自引率

5.60%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： Ophthalmic Epidemiology is dedicated to the publication of original research into eye and vision health in the fields of epidemiology, public health and the prevention of blindness. Ophthalmic Epidemiology publishes editorials, original research reports, systematic reviews and meta-analysis articles, brief communications and letters to the editor on all subjects related to ophthalmic epidemiology. A broad range of topics is suitable, such as: evaluating the risk of ocular diseases, general and specific study designs, screening program implementation and evaluation, eye health care access, delivery and outcomes, therapeutic efficacy or effectiveness, disease prognosis and quality of life, cost-benefit analysis, biostatistical theory and risk factor analysis. We are looking to expand our engagement with reports of international interest, including those regarding problems affecting developing countries, although reports from all over the world potentially are suitable. Clinical case reports, small case series (not enough for a cohort analysis) articles and animal research reports are not appropriate for this journal.