Quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others

Abstract Objective: This study evaluated the quality and readability of English-language internet information for adults with hearing impairment and their significant others. Design: Two keyword pairs (hearing loss and hearing aids) were entered into five country-specific versions of the most commonly used internet search engine in May 2011. Sample: For each of the 10 searches, the first 10 relevant websites were included. After removing duplicates, a total of 66 websites were assessed. Their origin (commercial, non-profit organization, or government), date of last update, quality (Health On the Net (HON) certification and DISCERN scores), and readability (Flesch Reading Ease Score, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Formula, and Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook) were assessed. Results: Most websites were of commercial origin and had been updated within the last 18 months. Their quality and readability was highly variable. Only 14% of the websites had HON certification. Websites that were of non-profit organization origin had significantly higher DISCERN scores. Readability measures show that on average, only people with at least 11–12 years of education could read and understand the internet information presented. Conclusions: Based on these results, this article provides a list of recommendations for website developers and clinicians wishing to incorporate internet information into their practice.

[1]  G. Andersson,et al.  Rehabilitative online education versus internet discussion group for hearing aid users: a randomized controlled trial. , 2011, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[2]  Angela Fagerlin,et al.  Use of the Internet and Ratings of Information Sources for Medical Decisions: Results from the DECISIONS Survey , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[3]  A. Laplante-Lévesque,et al.  Factors influencing rehabilitation decisions of adults with acquired hearing impairment , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[4]  K. Cienkowski,et al.  The impact of health literacy on patient understanding of counseling and education materials , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[5]  Thomas Abel,et al.  Internet information and medical consultations: experiences from patients' and physicians' perspectives. , 2009, Patient education and counseling.

[6]  Joseph R. Spiegel,et al.  Readability analysis of patient information on the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery website , 2009, Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

[7]  T. Volsko,et al.  Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. , 2008, Respiratory care.

[8]  B. G. Hunter,et al.  An out-patient study into the suitability of providing Ear, Nose & Throat patients with internet based information , 2007 .

[9]  Yuelin Li,et al.  Provider-patient dialogue about Internet health information: an exploration of strategies to improve the provider-patient relationship. , 2007, Patient education and counseling.

[10]  M. McMullan.  Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient-health professional relationship. , 2006, Patient education and counseling.

[11]  Todd H Wagner,et al.  Who searches the internet for health information? , 2006, Health services research.

[12]  Jean-Pierre Gagné,et al.  Providing an internet-based audiological counselling programme to new hearing aid users: A qualitative study , 2006, International journal of audiology.

[13]  Gary L. Kreps,et al.  Trust and sources of health information: the impact of the Internet and its implications for health care providers: findings from the first Health Information National Trends Survey. , 2005, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  D. Pothier.  Patients and the internet: are websites on glue ear readable? , 2005, Clinical otolaryngology : official journal of ENT-UK ; official journal of Netherlands Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology & Cervico-Facial Surgery.

[15]  L. Baker,et al.  Internet use and stigmatized illness. , 2005, Social science & medicine.

[16]  Michael K. Paasche-Orlow,et al.  The prevalence of limited health literacy , 2005, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[17]  Gbogboade Ademiluyi,et al.  Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. , 2003, Patient education and counseling.

[18]  J. Powell,et al.  Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. , 2002, JAMA.

[19]  Alejandro R Jadad,et al.  Examination of instruments used to rate quality of health information on the internet: chronicle of a voyage with an unclear destination , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  Christian Köhler,et al.  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 , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  Maurizio Bonati,et al.  Follow up of quality of public oriented health information on the world wide web: systematic re-evaluation , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  L. Hoy.  It's good to talk , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  D Charnock,et al.  DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. , 1999, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[24]  C Boyer,et al.  The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health Websites , 1998, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[25]  G D Lundberg,et al.  Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. , 1997, JAMA.

[26]  P. Ley,et al.  The use of readability formulas in health care , 1996 .

[27]  Cathy D. Meade,et al.  Readability Formulas: Cautions and Criteria , 1991 .

[28]  R. Flesch.  A new readability yardstick. , 1948, The Journal of applied psychology.

[29]  David Robins,et al.  Consumer health information on the Web: The relationship of visual design and perceptions of credibility , 2010, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[30]  D. Smyth,et al.  A critical evaluation of Web sites offering patient information on tinnitus. , 2010, Ear, nose, & throat journal.

[31]  R. Desjardins,et al.  Health Literacy in Canada: A Healthy Understanding , 2008 .

[32]  Elmer V. Bernstam,et al.  Instruments to assess the quality of health information on the World Wide Web: what can our patients actually use? , 2005, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[33]  R. Hétu.  The stigma attached to hearing impairment. , 1996, Scandinavian audiology. Supplementum.

[34]  G. Harry McLaughlin,et al.  SMOG Grading - A New Readability Formula. , 1969 .