PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(01): 031-040
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17070
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Quality and Readability of English-Language Internet Information for Tinnitus

Vinaya Manchaiah
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
†   Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
‡   Audiology India, Mysore, Karnataka, India
§   Department of Speech and Hearing, School of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University, Manipal, Karnataka, India
,
Ashley L. Dockens
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
,
Ashley Flagge
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
,
Monica Bellon-Harn
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
,
Jamie Hartwell Azios
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Lamar University, Beaumont, TX
,
Rebecca J. Kelly-Campbell
¶   Department of Communication Disorders, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
,
Gerhard Andersson
†   Department of Behavioural Sciences and Learning, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden
‖   Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Division of Psychiatry, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
26. Mai 2020 (online)

   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Because of the wealth of information available on the internet and increasing numbers of individuals relying on websites as a primary source of information for health-related questions, it is important that the readability of their content is within the comprehension level of most readers.

Objective:

The study evaluated the quality and readability of English-language Internet information for tinnitus.

Research Design:

Analysis of Internet websites on tinnitus.

Study Sample:

A total of 134 websites with tinnitus information.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Three key words (i.e., tinnitus, ringing in the ear, and buzzing in the ear) were entered in five country-specific versions of the most commonly used internet search engine in August 2016. For each of the 15 searches, the first 20 relevant websites were examined. After removing duplicates, a total of 134 websites were assessed. Their origin (commercial, nonprofit organization, government, personal, or university), quality (Health On the Net [HON] certification and DISCERN scores), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level Formula, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) were assessed.

Results:

Most websites were of commercial (49.3%) or nonprofit organization (38.8%) origin. Their quality and readability was highly variable. Only 13.5% of websites had HON certification. χ2 analysis showed that there was significant association between website origin and HON certification [χ2(4) = 132.9, p < 0.0001]. The mean DISCERN scores were 2.39. No association between DISCERN scores and website origin was found. Readability measures showed that on average, only people with at least 10–12 yr of education could read and understand the internet information for tinnitus in websites. Almost all the websites exceeded the most stringent reading level recommended for health information.

Conclusions:

The results highlight great variability in the quality and readability of health information, specifically for tinnitus in the internet. These findings underscores the need for stakeholders (e.g., web-developers, clinicians) to be aware of this and to develop more user-friendly health information on websites to make it more accessible for people with low literacy.

Key Words

health information quality - health information readability - internet health information - tinnitus
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Ademiluyi G, Rees CE, Sheard CE. 2003; Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 50 (02) 151-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Atcherson SR, DeLaune AE, Hadden K, Zraick RI, Kelly-Campbell RJ, Minaya CP. 2014; A computer-based readability analysis of consumer materials on the American Speech-Language-Hearing association website. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 41: 12-23
    Google Scholar
  • Atcherson SR, Zraick RI, Brasseux RE. 2011; Readability of patient-reported outcome questionnaires for use with persons with tinnitus. Ear Hear 32 (05) 671-673
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baguley D, McFerran D, Hall D. 2013; Tinnitus. Lancet 382 (9904) 1600-1607
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bauer CA, Brozoski TJ. 2011; Effect of tinnitus retraining therapy on the loudness and annoyance of tinnitus: a controlled trial. Ear Hear 32 (02) 145-155
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Breese P, Burman W. 2005; Readability of notice of privacy forms used by major health care institutions. JAMA 293 (13) 1593-1594
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Boyer C, Selby M, Scherrer JR, Appel RD. 1998; The Health On the Net code of conduct for medical and health websites. Comput Biol Med 28 (05) 603-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. 1999; DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53 (02) 105-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Couper MP, Singer E, Levin CA, Fowler Jr FJ, Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. 2010; Use of the Internet and ratings of information sources for medical decisions: results from the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making 30 (05) (Suppl) 106S-114S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • D’Alessandro DM, Kingsley P, Johnson-West J. 2001; The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155 (07) 807-812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH. 1996. Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. Philadelphia, PA: J.B. Lippincott Company;
    Google Scholar
  • El-Shunnar SK, Hoare DJ, Smith S, Gander PE, Kang S, Fackrell K, Hall DA. 2011; Primary care for tinnitus: practice and opinion among GPs in England. J Eval Clin Pract 17 (04) 684-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Eloy JA, Li S, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Baredes S, Setzen M. 2012; Readability assessment of patient education materials on major otolaryngology association websites. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 147 (05) 848-854
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fackrell K, Hoare DJ, Smith S, McCormack A, Hall DA. 2012; An evaluation of the content and quality of tinnitus information on websites preferred by General Practitioners. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 12 (01) 70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Flesch R. 1948; A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32 (03) 221-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Folmer RL, Martin WH, Shi Y. 2004; Tinnitus: questions to reveal the cause, answers to provide relief. J Fam Pract 53 (07) 532-540
    Google Scholar
  • Fox S. 2014 Americans Feel Better Informed Thanks to the Internet. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/12/08/better-informed/ . Accessed August 24, 2017
    PubMed
  • Hesser H, Weise C, Westin VZ, Andersson G. 2011; A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of cognitive-behavioral therapy for tinnitus distress. Clin Psychol Rev 31 (04) 545-553
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hsu P-H. 2017 Readability of hearing related Internet information in traditional Chinese. Masters Dissertation, University of Canterbury. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/13652/MAud%20thesis%20-%20Po-Hsiang%20%28Paul%29%20Hsu.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y . Accessed October 6, 2017
    PubMed
  • Joseph J, Svider PF, Shaigany K, Eloy JA, McDonald PG, Folbe AJ, Hong RS. 2016; Hearing aid patient education materials: is there room for improvement?. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (04) 354-359
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kahn A, Pannbacker M. 2000; Readability of educational materials for clients with cleft lip/palate and their families. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 9 (01) 3-9
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kelly-Campbell RJ, Atcherson SR, Zimmerman KR, Zraick RI. 2012; Readability of audiologic self-report assessment tools. J Am Rehab Acad 45: 63-73
    Google Scholar
  • Kirsch IS. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: Office of Education Research and Improvement, U.S. Dept. of Education;
    Google Scholar
  • Laplante-Lévesque A, Brännström KJ, Andersson G, Lunner T. 2012; Quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int J Audiol 51 (08) 618-626
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Laplante-Lévesque A, Thorén ES. 2015; Readability of Internet information on hearing: systematic literature review. Am J Audiol 24 (03) 284-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ley P, Florio T. 1996; The use of readability formulas in healthcare. Psychol Health Med 1 (01) 7-28
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Loumidis KS, Hallam RS, Cadge B. 1991; The effect of written reassuring information on out-patients complaining of tinnitus. Br J Audiol 25 (02) 105-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Martinez-Devesa P, Perera R, Theodoulou M, Waddell A. 2010; Cognitive behavioural therapy for tinnitus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (09) CD005233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McLaughlin G. 1969; SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 12 (08) 639-646
    Google Scholar
  • Meade CD, Smith CF. 1991; Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns 17 (02) 153-158
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Net Marketshare 2017 Desktop Search Engine Market Share. http://marketshare.hitslink.com . Accessed August 24, 2017
    PubMed
  • Noble W. 2012. Self-Assessment of Hearing. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing Inc.;
    Google Scholar
  • Robins D, Holmes J, Stansbury M. 2010; Consumer health information on the web: the relationship of visual design and perceptions of credibility. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 61 (01) 13-29
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. 2014; Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns 96 (03) 395-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Newall P, Golding M, Rochtchina E, Rubin G. 2003; Prevalence and characteristics of tinnitus in older adults: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Int J Audiol 42 (05) 289-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tunkel DE. et al. 2014; Clinical practice guideline: tinnitus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 151 (02) (Suppl) S1-S40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Unterrainer J, Greimel KV, Leibetseder M. 2001; Are demographic and socioeconomic factors predictive for perceived tinnitus impairment?. Int Tinnitus J 7 (02) 109-111
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Walsh TM, Volsko TA. 2008; Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53 (10) 1310-1315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wang LW, Miller MJ, Schmitt MR, Wen FK. 2013; Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm 9 (05) 503-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Weiss BD, Coyne C. 1997; Communicating with patients who cannot read. N Engl J Med 337 (04) 272-274
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • World Health Organization 2017 Health Literacy and Health Behaviour. http://www.who.int/healthpromotion/conferences/7gchp/track2/en/ . Accessed August 24, 2017
    PubMed