journal article·2020-05-05Open access

Evaluation of Quality and Readability of Online Health Information on High Blood Pressure Using DISCERN and Flesch-Kincaid Tools

Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Usman, Fazal Muhammad, Shams ur Rehman, Imran Khan, Muhammad Idrees, Muhammad Irfan, Adam Glowacz

Applied Sciences· Volume 10· Issue 9

Abstract

High Blood Pressure (BP) is a vital factor in the development of cardiovascular diseases worldwide. For more than a decade now, patients search for quality and easy-to-read Online Health Information (OHI) for symptoms, preventions, therapy and other medical conditions. In this paper, we evaluate the quality and readability of OHI about high BP. In order that the first 20 clicks of three top-rated search engines have been used to collect the pertinent data. Using the exclusion criteria, 25 unique websites are selected for evaluation. The quality of all included links is evaluated through DISCERN checklist, a questionnaire for assessing the quality of written information for a health problem. To enhance the reliability of evaluation, all links are separately assessed by two different groups—a group of Health Professional (HPs) and a group of Lay Subjects (LS). A readability test is performed using Flesch-Kincaid tool. Fleiss’ kappa has been calculated before considering average value of each group. After evaluation, the average DISCERN value of HPs is 49.43 ± 14.0 (fair quality) while for LS, it is 48.7 ± 12.2; the mean Flesch-Reading Ease Score (FRES) is 58.5 ± 11.1, which is fairly difficult to read and the Average Grade Level (AGL) is 8.8 ± 1.9. None of the websites scored more than 73 (90%). In both groups, only 4 (16%) websites achieved DISCERN score over 80%. Mann-Whitney and Cronbach’s alpha have been computed to check the statistical significance of the difference between two groups and internal consistency of DISCERN checklist, respectively. Normality and homoscedasticity tests have been performed to check the distribution of scores of both evaluating groups. In both groups, information category websites achieved high DISCERN score but their readability level is worse. Highest scoring websites have clear aim, succinct source and high quality of information on treatment options. High BP is a pervasive disease, yet most of the websites did not produce precise or high-quality information on treatment options.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Health Literacy and Information Accessibility · Mobile Health and mHealth Applications · Text Readability and Simplification

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Department of Computer Software Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Mardan, Mardan 23200, Pakistan

Department of Electrical Engineering, City University of Science & Information Technology Peshawar, Peshawar 25000, Pakistan

Department of Computer Science, University of Engineering and Technology Mardan, Mardan 23200, Pakistan

Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology Mardan, Mardan 23200, Pakistan

Health Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Malakand 23050, Pakistan

Electrical Engineering Department, College of Engineering, Najran University Saudi Arabia, Najran 61441, Saudi Arabia

Department of Automatic, Control and Robotics, AGH University of Science and Technology, 30-059 Kraków, Poland

References (47)

Show source-provided references
1. World Health Organization (1996). Non Communicable Disease WHO Experts Warn Against Inadequate Prevention, World Health Organization.
2. The Quality of Websites Related to Hypertension in Iranian Internet Space
3. Prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in rural and urban communities in high-, middle-, and low-income countries10.1001/jama.2013.184182 ↗
4. The burden and high prevalence of hypertension in Pakistani adolescents: A meta-analysis of the published studies10.1186/s13690-018-0265-5 ↗
5. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 201010.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8 ↗
6. Low health literacy and evaluation of online health information: A systematic review of the literature
7. (2018, October 15). Internet World Stats – Usage and Populations Statistics. Available online: https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.
8. Website and Headache: Assessment of the Information Quality Using the DISCERN Tool
9. (2019, August 13). Dr Google Will See You Now. Available online: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/03/10/google-sifting-one-billion-health-questions-day/.
10. Assessing the quality, reliability and readability of online health information regarding systemic lupus erythematosus10.1177/0961203318793213 ↗
11. (2018, October 19). More People Search for Health Online. Available online: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077086/t/more-people-search-health-online/#.W8o4kkszbIU.
12. (2018, October 19). Europeans Becoming Enthusiastic Users of Online Health Information: Shaping Europe’s Digital Future. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/europeans-becoming-enthusiastic-users-online-health-information.
13. Analysis of Comprehensibility of Patient Information Regarding Complex Craniofacial Conditions10.1097/SCS.0b013e31821c00e4 ↗
14. Quality and Readability of Online Information on Ankylosing Spondylitis10.1007/s10067-019-04706-y ↗
15. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: National US survey among 1.050 US physicians10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17 ↗
16. What predicts patients’ interest in the Internet as a health resource in primary care in England?10.1177/135581960300800108 ↗
17. Conceptual framework for a new tool for evaluating the quality of diabetes consumer-information Web sites10.2196/jmir.5.4.e29 ↗
18. Charnock, D. (2018, September 12). The DISCERN Handbook: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Available online: http://www.discern.org.uk.
19. Health literacy and the World Wide Web: Comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet10.1080/14639230600628427 ↗
20. McKenzie, J.F., Neiger, B.L., and Thackeray, R. (2016). Planning, Implementing & Evaluating Health Promotion Programs: A Primer, Pearson.
21. Readability of Online Patient-Based Information on Bariatric Surgery10.15171/hpp.2019.22 ↗
22. Systematic Review of Patient Education Practices in Weight Loss Surgery10.1016/j.soard.2017.01.008 ↗
23. Analysis of the Readability of Patient Education Materials from Surgical Subspecialties10.1002/lary.24261 ↗
24. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 ↗
25. An assessment of the quality and content of information on diverticulitis on the Internet10.1016/j.surge.2018.03.010 ↗
26. Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options10.1016/j.breast.2017.10.004 ↗
27. Use of the DISCERN tool for evaluating web searches in childhood epilepsy10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.09.053 ↗
28. Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP using the DISCERN instrument
29. A systematic review of the quality of information on the treatment of anxiety disorders on the Internet10.1007/s11920-007-0037-3 ↗
30. Quality, Readability, and Understandability of Internet-Based Information on Cataract10.1007/s12553-019-00324-5 ↗
31. Quality and Readability of Online Patient Education Information and the Parents Comprehension for Childhood Depression10.4172/2157-7420.1000214 ↗
32. The Quality of Internet Sites Providing Information Relating to Hip Resurfacing10.1016/S1479-666X(08)80070-4 ↗
33. Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis10.1002/lary.26521 ↗
34. The Variation in Quality and Content of Patient-Focused Health Information on the Internet for Otitis Media10.1111/cch.12524 ↗
35. Evaluation of Online Health Information on Clubfoot Using the DISCERN Tool10.1097/BPB.0000000000000000 ↗
36. Health information needs, sources, and barriers of primary care patients to achieve patient-centered care: A literature review10.1177/1460458215602939 ↗
37. (2020, March 10). World Health Organization Hypertension. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension.
38. Using the Internet: Skill related problems in users’ online behavior10.1016/j.intcom.2009.06.005 ↗
39. How Do Consumers Search for and Appraise Health Information on the World Wide Web? Qualitative Study Using Focus Groups, Usability Tests, and in-Depth Interviews10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573 ↗
40. Computerized versus hand-scored health literacy tools: A comparison of Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and Flesch-Kincaid in printed patient education materials
41. Readability of online patient education materials from the AAOS web site10.1007/s11999-008-0193-8 ↗
42. Patient Information Materials in General Practices and Promotion of Health Literacy: An Observational Study of Their Effectiveness10.3399/bjgp15X684013 ↗
43. Testing the Validity and Reliability of the “Learn, Pick, Flip, Check, Reward” (LPFCR) Card Game in Homophone Comprehension
44. Landis, J.R., and Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 159–174.10.2307/2529310 ↗
45. An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 ↗
46. Power comparisons of shapiro-wilk, kolmogorov-smirnov, lilliefors and anderson-darling tests
47. Cramer, D. (1998). Fundamental Statistics for Social Research: Step-By-Step Calculations and Computer Techniques Using SPSS for Windows, Psychology Press.