Patient-Directed Vasectomy Information: How Readable Is It?

IF 4 3区 医学 Q1 ANDROLOGY
World Journal of Mens Health Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-01 DOI:10.5534/wjmh.230033
Reza Kianian, Ming-Yeah Y Hu, Abigail J Lavold, Juan J Andino, Jeffrey C Morrison, Sriram V Eleswarapu, Jesse N Mills
{"title":"Patient-Directed Vasectomy Information: How Readable Is It?","authors":"Reza Kianian, Ming-Yeah Y Hu, Abigail J Lavold, Juan J Andino, Jeffrey C Morrison, Sriram V Eleswarapu, Jesse N Mills","doi":"10.5534/wjmh.230033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the quality and readability of online health information on vasectomy using validated readability and quality assessment tools.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The top 50 search results for \"vasectomy\" on Google, Bing, and Yahoo were selected. Duplicate links, advertisements, blog posts, paid webpages, and information intended for healthcare providers were excluded. Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade level, Gunning Fog Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index were used to assess readability, with optimal readability level for online health information established as being at sixth grade reading level. DISCERN Instrument and JAMA Benchmark were used to assess the quality of selected webpages. Inter-assessment score correlation and results by webpage type were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 44 webpages, including 16 academic, 5 hospital-affiliated, 6 commercial, 13 non-profit health advocacy, and 4 uncategorized sources. The average readability of the evaluated webpages was at a 10th grade reading level as measured by the Flesch Kincaid Assessment tool, and an undergraduate reading level per the SMOG and Gunning Fog indices. Non-profit health advocacy webpages had the best reading level but still was not at the recommended level of grade 6 to 7. The overall DISCERN quality of the webpages was \"fair\", with non-profit health advocacy pages performing best.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The assessed webpages offer education on vasectomy in a language that is too complex for the general population to understand. Furthermore, several sources for online health information, such as non-profits, outperformed webpages by academic institutions. Increased healthcare collaboration and dedication to producing quality online patient resources is necessary to address these shortcomings and build trust among patients to increase utilization of vasectomy and decrease decisional regret.</p>","PeriodicalId":54261,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Mens Health","volume":" ","pages":"408-414"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10949024/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Mens Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.230033","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANDROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the quality and readability of online health information on vasectomy using validated readability and quality assessment tools.

Materials and methods: The top 50 search results for "vasectomy" on Google, Bing, and Yahoo were selected. Duplicate links, advertisements, blog posts, paid webpages, and information intended for healthcare providers were excluded. Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade level, Gunning Fog Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) index were used to assess readability, with optimal readability level for online health information established as being at sixth grade reading level. DISCERN Instrument and JAMA Benchmark were used to assess the quality of selected webpages. Inter-assessment score correlation and results by webpage type were analyzed.

Results: We analyzed 44 webpages, including 16 academic, 5 hospital-affiliated, 6 commercial, 13 non-profit health advocacy, and 4 uncategorized sources. The average readability of the evaluated webpages was at a 10th grade reading level as measured by the Flesch Kincaid Assessment tool, and an undergraduate reading level per the SMOG and Gunning Fog indices. Non-profit health advocacy webpages had the best reading level but still was not at the recommended level of grade 6 to 7. The overall DISCERN quality of the webpages was "fair", with non-profit health advocacy pages performing best.

Conclusions: The assessed webpages offer education on vasectomy in a language that is too complex for the general population to understand. Furthermore, several sources for online health information, such as non-profits, outperformed webpages by academic institutions. Increased healthcare collaboration and dedication to producing quality online patient resources is necessary to address these shortcomings and build trust among patients to increase utilization of vasectomy and decrease decisional regret.

患者指导的输精管切除术信息:可读性如何?
目的:使用经验证的可读性和质量评估工具,评估输精管切除术在线健康信息的质量和可读性。材料和方法:在谷歌、必应和雅虎上搜索“输精管切除术”的前50名。重复链接、广告、博客文章、付费网页和面向医疗保健提供者的信息被排除在外。使用Flesch Reading Ease评分、Flesch Kincaid等级水平、Gunning Fog指数和Gobbledygouk简单测量(SMOG)指数来评估可读性,确定在线健康信息的最佳可读性水平为六年级阅读水平。DISCERN Instrument和JAMA Benchmark用于评估选定网页的质量。按网页类型分析评估间得分相关性和结果。结果:我们分析了44个网页,包括16个学术网页、5个附属医院网页、6个商业网页、13个非营利健康倡导网页和4个未分类的来源。根据Flesch-Kincaid评估工具的测量,评估网页的平均可读性处于10年级阅读水平,根据SMOG和Gunning Fog指数,处于本科生阅读水平。非营利健康宣传网页的阅读水平最好,但仍不在6至7年级的推荐水平。DISCERN网页的总体质量“尚可”,非营利健康宣传网页表现最佳。结论:评估的网页提供输精管切除术的教育,其语言过于复杂,普通人群无法理解。此外,一些在线健康信息来源,如非营利组织,表现优于学术机构的网页。为了解决这些缺点,在患者之间建立信任,提高输精管切除术的利用率,减少决策失误,有必要加强医疗保健合作,致力于生产高质量的在线患者资源。
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
World Journal of Mens Health
World Journal of Mens Health Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.10%
发文量
92
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信