nach oben

Journal of Genetic Counseling

Erschienen in:

26.09.2017 | Original Research

Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes

verfasst von: Yue Guan, Kristin A. Maloney, Debra L. Roter, Toni I. Pollin

Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling | Ausgabe 3/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to assess the informational content, readability, suitability and comprehensibility of websites offering educational information about monogenic diabetes available to patients. The top 20 results from 15 queries in four search engines were screened. Content analysis was performed by two independent coders. Readability was determined using Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) and Simplified Measure of Goobledygook (SMOG). The Comprehensibility Assessment of Materials (SAM + CAM) scale was utilized to evaluate website suitability and comprehensibility. Only 2% (N = 29) of 1200 screened websites met inclusion criteria. Content analysis showed that 16 websites presented information on at least the most common forms of MODY (1, 2 and 3), four addressed the utility of genetic counseling, and none included support resources for patients. All websites exceeded the consensus readability level (6th grade) as assessed by FKGL (10.1 grade) and SMOG (12.8 ± 1.5 grades). Although the majority (N = 20) of websites had an overall “adequate” to “superior” quality score (SAM + CAM score > = 40%), more than one-third scored “not suitable” in categories of content, literacy demand, graphics, and learning motivation. The online educational resources for monogenic diabetes have a high readability level and require improvement in ease of use and comprehensibility for patients with diabetes.

American Diabetes Association. 2. Classification and Diagnosis of Diabetes. (2016). Diabetes Care, 39 (Suppl 1), S13–S22. doi: https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-S005.

Agarwal, N., Hansberry, D. R., Sabourin, V., Tomei, K. L., & Prestigiacomo, C. J. (2013). A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Internal Medicine, 173(13), 1257–1259. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6060.CrossRefPubMed

Albert, T. (2000). Written information for patients. Lancet, 356(9227), 434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)73584-4.CrossRefPubMed

Alexa. (2016). The top 500 sites on the web. Retrieved 01/07, 2016, from http://www.alexa.com/topsites/category/Computers/Internet/Searching/Search_Engines.

Boulos, M. N. (2005). British internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable? Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics, 7(3), 528–535. https://doi.org/10.1089/dia.2005.7.528.CrossRef

Center, T. P. R. (2013). Health Online 2013. Retrieved 01/26, 2017, from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/.

Chumber, S., Huber, J., & Ghezzi, P. (2015). A methodology to analyze the quality of health information on the internet: the example of diabetic neuropathy. The Diabetes Educator, 41(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721714560772.CrossRefPubMed

Cowie, C. C., & Eberhardt, M. S. (1995). Sociodemographic characteristics of persons with diabetes. Diabetes in America, 2, 85–116.

Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. H. (1985). Teaching patients with low literacy skills: Lippincott, Philadelphia.

Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E. R. (2002). Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA, 287(20), 2691–2700.CrossRefPubMed

Finnie, R. K., Felder, T. M., Linder, S. K., & Mullen, P. D. (2010). Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and web-based materials. Journal of Cancer Education, 25(4), 497–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fitzmaurice, D. A., & Adams, J. L. (2000). A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension. Journal of Human Hypertension, 14(4), 259–262.CrossRefPubMed

Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233.CrossRefPubMed

Friedman, D. B., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2006). A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior, 33(3), 352–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105277329.CrossRef

Gimenez-Perez, G., Caixas, A., Gimenez-Palop, O., Gonzalez-Clemente, J. M., & Mauricio, D. (2005). Dissemination of 'patient-oriented evidence that matters' on the internet: the case of type 2 diabetes treatment. Diabetic Medicine, 22(6), 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01522.x.CrossRefPubMed

Hattersley, A., Bruining, J., Shield, J., Njolstad, P., & Donaghue, K. C. (2009). The diagnosis and management of monogenic diabetes in children and adolescents. Pediatric Diabetes, 10(Suppl 12), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-5448.2009.00571.x.CrossRefPubMed

American Medical Association. (1999). Health literacy: report of the council on scientific affairs. Ad hoc committee on health literacy for the council on scientific affairs. JAMA, 281(6), 552–557.CrossRef

Helitzer, D., Hollis, C., Cotner, J., & Oestreicher, N. (2009). Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control, 16(1), 70–78.CrossRefPubMed

Hernandez, L. M. (2009). Health literacy, eHealth, and communication: putting the consumer first: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Hutchinson, N., Baird, G. L., & Garg, M. (2016). Examining the reading level of internet medical information for common internal medicine diagnoses. The American Journal of Medicine, 129(6), 637–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.008.CrossRefPubMed

Kim, S., Love, F., Quistberg, D. A., & Shea, J. A. (2004). Association of health literacy with self-management behavior in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 27(12), 2980–2982.CrossRefPubMed

Kusec, S., Brborovic, O., & Schillinger, D. (2003). Diabetes websites accredited by the health on the net foundation code of conduct: readable or not? Studies in Health Technology and Informatics, 95, 655–660.PubMed

Ley, P., & Florio, T. (1996). The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 1(1), 7–28.CrossRef

Mc Laughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.

Overland, J. E., Hoskins, P. L., McGill, M. J., & Yue, D. K. (1993). Low literacy: a problem in diabetes education. Diabetic Medicine, 10(9), 847–850.CrossRefPubMed

Pauer, F., Litzkendorf, S., Gobel, J., Storf, H., Zeidler, J., & Graf von der Schulenburg, J. M. (2017). Rare diseases on the internet: an assessment of the quality of online information. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(1), e23. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.7056.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ryan, L., Logsdon, M. C., McGill, S., Stikes, R., Senior, B., Helinger, B., et al. (2014). Evaluation of printed health education materials for use by low-education families. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46(4), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12076.CrossRefPubMed

Schillinger, D., Grumbach, K., Piette, J., Wang, F., Osmond, D., Daher, C., et al. (2002). Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA, 288(4), 475–482.CrossRefPubMed

Shepherd, M. (2003). ‘I'm Amazed I've been able to come off injections’: patients' Perceptions of genetic testing in diabetes. Practical Diabetes International, 20(9), 338–342.CrossRef

Shepherd, M., & Hattersley, A. T. (2004). I don't feel like a diabetic any more': The impact of stopping insulin in patients with maturity onset diabetes of the young following genetic testing. Clinical Medicine (London, England), 4(2), 144–147.CrossRef

Shields, B. M., Hicks, S., Shepherd, M. H., Colclough, K., Hattersley, A. T., & Ellard, S. (2010). Maturity-onset diabetes of the young (MODY): How many cases are we missing? Diabetologia, 53(12), 2504–2508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-010-1799-4.CrossRefPubMed

Thakurdesai, P. A., Kole, P. L., & Pareek, R. P. (2004). Evaluation of the quality and contents of diabetes mellitus patient education on internet. Patient Education and Counseling, 53(3), 309–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.04.001.CrossRefPubMed

Thomson, M. D., & Hoffman-Goetz, L. (2007). Readability and cultural sensitivity of web-based patient decision aids for cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review. Medical Informatics and the Internet in Medicine, 32(4), 263–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639230701780408.CrossRefPubMed

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Web Standards and Usability Guidelines. (2016). Retrieved 3/8, 2016, from https://guidelines.usability.gov/.

van Esch, S. C., Cornel, M. C., & Snoek, F. J. (2006). Type 2 diabetes and inheritance: what information do diabetes organizations provide on the internet? Diabetic Medicine, 23(11), 1233–1238. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01963.x.CrossRefPubMed

Walsh, T. M., & Volsko, T. A. (2008). Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respiratory Care, 53(10), 1310–1315.PubMed

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI): Web accessibility standards and guidelines (2016). Retrieved 3/8, 2016, from https://www.w3.org/WAI/guid-tech.html.

Weintraub, D., Maliski, S. L., Fink, A., Choe, S., & Litwin, M. S. (2004). Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Education and Counseling, 55(2), 275–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2003.10.003.CrossRefPubMed

Weymann, N., Harter, M., & Dirmaier, J. (2015). Quality of online information on type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study. Health Promotion International, 30(4), 821–831. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dau019.CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes
verfasst von: Yue Guan
Kristin A. Maloney
Debra L. Roter
Toni I. Pollin
Publikationsdatum: 26.09.2017
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Genetic Counseling / Ausgabe 3/2018
Print ISSN: 1059-7700
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3599
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10897-017-0155-y

Update Gynäkologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes

Abstract

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

Embryotransfer erhöht womöglich Leukämierisiko der Kinder

Alter verschlechtert Prognose bei Endometriumkarzinom

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Update Gynäkologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2018

Response to Commercial Genetic Testing and the Future of the Genetic Counseling Profession

“Yeah that Made a Big Difference!”: The Importance of the Relationship between Health Professionals and Fathers Who Have a Child with Down Syndrome

Working with the Hmong Population in a Genetics Setting: an Interpreter Perspective

Women’s Understanding and Attitudes towards Down Syndrome and Other Genetic Conditions in the Context of Prenatal Screening

Clinical Utility of Expanded Carrier Screening: Reproductive Behaviors of At-Risk Couples

The Experience of Genetic Counselors Working with Patients Facing the Decision of Pregnancy Termination after 24 Weeks Gestation

Neu im Fachgebiet Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe

Gestationsdiabetes: In der zweiten Schwangerschaft folgenreicher als in der ersten

Embryotransfer erhöht womöglich Leukämierisiko der Kinder

Alter verschlechtert Prognose bei Endometriumkarzinom

Darf man die Behandlung eines Neonazis ablehnen?

Update Gynäkologie