鼻内窥镜在线健康教育:可读性和可靠性研究。

IF 1.8 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
OTO Open Pub Date : 2025-04-25 eCollection Date: 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1002/oto2.70117
Rohan Singh, Christopher Badger, Arjun S Joshi
{"title":"鼻内窥镜在线健康教育:可读性和可靠性研究。","authors":"Rohan Singh, Christopher Badger, Arjun S Joshi","doi":"10.1002/oto2.70117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sialendoscopy is a diagnostic and interventional treatment for patients with salivary disease. Patients and physicians leverage website information to acquire knowledge about sialendoscopy; thus, understanding the quality of this information is essential. This study analyzes the quality and readability of online information on sialendoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>\"Sialendoscopy\" was searched on Google, and the first 100 websites were evaluated. Each website was required to meet three criteria for inclusion: accessible when opened, content deemed relevant, and available in written format. Four validated readability and two validated reliability metrics were utilized. Additionally, a separate analysis was conducted for the top nine websites in the search engine, given most web traffic occurs on Google's first page.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In assessing readability, the mean Flesch Reading Ease Score for included and the top nine websites was 36.2 and 39.5, respectively, with a <i>P</i>-value of .543. Both scores aligned with the \"difficult to read\" category. Other readability metrics aligned with high school reading levels. For reliability, the mean Discern score for the included and the top nine websites was 36.9 and 45.0, respectively, with a <i>P</i>-value of .030. These scores aligned with the \"poor\" and \"fair\" categories, respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The low readability and reliability scores implied that the online health information on sialendoscopy is not easily understandable at a reading level appropriate for the general public. Our findings showed that the most readable and highest quality websites were not the highest ranked in our search results. Factors such as search engine algorithms and complex medical terminology used in these informative websites contribute to the lack of readability and relability of online health education.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>As AI evolves, future studies should be conducted to assess its impact on readability and reliability of online health information. There is an opportunity to adjust search engine algorithms, collaborate with communications specialists, and utilize new technologies, such as artificial intelligence chatbots, for the benefit of health seekers.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"9 2","pages":"e70117"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12022896/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Online Health Education About Sialendoscopy: A Study on Readability and Reliability.\",\"authors\":\"Rohan Singh, Christopher Badger, Arjun S Joshi\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/oto2.70117\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Sialendoscopy is a diagnostic and interventional treatment for patients with salivary disease. Patients and physicians leverage website information to acquire knowledge about sialendoscopy; thus, understanding the quality of this information is essential. This study analyzes the quality and readability of online information on sialendoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>\\\"Sialendoscopy\\\" was searched on Google, and the first 100 websites were evaluated. Each website was required to meet three criteria for inclusion: accessible when opened, content deemed relevant, and available in written format. Four validated readability and two validated reliability metrics were utilized. Additionally, a separate analysis was conducted for the top nine websites in the search engine, given most web traffic occurs on Google's first page.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In assessing readability, the mean Flesch Reading Ease Score for included and the top nine websites was 36.2 and 39.5, respectively, with a <i>P</i>-value of .543. Both scores aligned with the \\\"difficult to read\\\" category. Other readability metrics aligned with high school reading levels. For reliability, the mean Discern score for the included and the top nine websites was 36.9 and 45.0, respectively, with a <i>P</i>-value of .030. These scores aligned with the \\\"poor\\\" and \\\"fair\\\" categories, respectively.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The low readability and reliability scores implied that the online health information on sialendoscopy is not easily understandable at a reading level appropriate for the general public. Our findings showed that the most readable and highest quality websites were not the highest ranked in our search results. Factors such as search engine algorithms and complex medical terminology used in these informative websites contribute to the lack of readability and relability of online health education.</p><p><strong>Implications for practice: </strong>As AI evolves, future studies should be conducted to assess its impact on readability and reliability of online health information. There is an opportunity to adjust search engine algorithms, collaborate with communications specialists, and utilize new technologies, such as artificial intelligence chatbots, for the benefit of health seekers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19697,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"OTO Open\",\"volume\":\"9 2\",\"pages\":\"e70117\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12022896/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"OTO Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70117\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:涎镜检查是涎腺疾病的一种诊断和介入治疗方法。患者和医生利用网站信息获取有关咽镜检查的知识;因此,了解这些信息的质量至关重要。本研究分析了涎镜检查在线信息的质量和可读性。方法:在谷歌上搜索“Sialendoscopy”,对前100个网站进行评价。每个网站都需要满足三个标准:打开时可访问,内容被认为相关,并以书面形式提供。采用了四个经验证的可读性指标和两个经验证的可靠性指标。此外,考虑到大多数网络流量发生在b谷歌的首页,对搜索引擎中排名前九的网站进行了单独的分析。结果:在可读性评估方面,入选网站和排名前9位网站的Flesch Reading Ease Score平均值分别为36.2和39.5,p值为0.543。这两个分数都符合“难以阅读”的类别。其他可读性指标与高中阅读水平一致。在信度方面,被收录网站和排名前九的网站的平均Discern得分分别为36.9和45.0,p值为0.030。这些分数分别与“差”和“一般”类别相符。讨论:较低的可读性和可靠性分数暗示在线健康信息涎镜不容易理解,适合普通大众的阅读水平。我们的研究结果表明,可读性最高、质量最高的网站在我们的搜索结果中并不是排名最高的。这些信息网站中使用的搜索引擎算法和复杂的医学术语等因素导致在线健康教育缺乏可读性和可靠性。对实践的影响:随着人工智能的发展,未来的研究应进行评估其对在线健康信息的可读性和可靠性的影响。有机会调整搜索引擎算法,与通信专家合作,并利用新技术,如人工智能聊天机器人,为寻求健康的人带来好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Online Health Education About Sialendoscopy: A Study on Readability and Reliability.

Objective: Sialendoscopy is a diagnostic and interventional treatment for patients with salivary disease. Patients and physicians leverage website information to acquire knowledge about sialendoscopy; thus, understanding the quality of this information is essential. This study analyzes the quality and readability of online information on sialendoscopy.

Methods: "Sialendoscopy" was searched on Google, and the first 100 websites were evaluated. Each website was required to meet three criteria for inclusion: accessible when opened, content deemed relevant, and available in written format. Four validated readability and two validated reliability metrics were utilized. Additionally, a separate analysis was conducted for the top nine websites in the search engine, given most web traffic occurs on Google's first page.

Results: In assessing readability, the mean Flesch Reading Ease Score for included and the top nine websites was 36.2 and 39.5, respectively, with a P-value of .543. Both scores aligned with the "difficult to read" category. Other readability metrics aligned with high school reading levels. For reliability, the mean Discern score for the included and the top nine websites was 36.9 and 45.0, respectively, with a P-value of .030. These scores aligned with the "poor" and "fair" categories, respectively.

Discussion: The low readability and reliability scores implied that the online health information on sialendoscopy is not easily understandable at a reading level appropriate for the general public. Our findings showed that the most readable and highest quality websites were not the highest ranked in our search results. Factors such as search engine algorithms and complex medical terminology used in these informative websites contribute to the lack of readability and relability of online health education.

Implications for practice: As AI evolves, future studies should be conducted to assess its impact on readability and reliability of online health information. There is an opportunity to adjust search engine algorithms, collaborate with communications specialists, and utilize new technologies, such as artificial intelligence chatbots, for the benefit of health seekers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
OTO Open
OTO Open Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
15 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