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 countries
10.1001/jama.2013.184182 ↗4. The burden and high prevalence of hypertension in Pakistani adolescents: A meta-analysis of the published studies
10.1186/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 2010
10.1016/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 erythematosus
10.1177/0961203318793213 ↗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.
15. The impact of health information on the Internet on health care and the physician-patient relationship: National US survey among 1.050 US physicians
10.2196/jmir.5.3.e17 ↗17. Conceptual framework for a new tool for evaluating the quality of diabetes consumer-information Web sites
10.2196/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 Internet
10.1080/14639230600628427 ↗20. McKenzie, J.F., Neiger, B.L., and Thackeray, R. (2016). Planning, Implementing & Evaluating Health Promotion Programs: A Primer, Pearson.
23. Analysis of the Readability of Patient Education Materials from Surgical Subspecialties
10.1002/lary.24261 ↗24. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: A systematic review
10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 ↗28. Assessing the quality and reliability of health information on ERCP using the DISCERN instrument
31. Quality and Readability of Online Patient Education Information and the Parents Comprehension for Childhood Depression
10.4172/2157-7420.1000214 ↗33. Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis
10.1002/lary.26521 ↗34. The Variation in Quality and Content of Patient-Focused Health Information on the Internet for Otitis Media
10.1111/cch.12524 ↗36. Health information needs, sources, and barriers of primary care patients to achieve patient-centered care: A literature review
10.1177/1460458215602939 ↗37. (2020, March 10). World Health Organization Hypertension. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hypertension.
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 Interviews
10.1136/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
42. Patient Information Materials in General Practices and Promotion of Health Literacy: An Observational Study of Their Effectiveness
10.3399/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 ↗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.