Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T17:18:44.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Online Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Resources

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Daniela B. Friedman ,
Manju Tanwar  and
Jane V.E. Richter
Daniela B. Friedman*
Affiliation:
Department of Health Promotion, Education, and Behavior, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina USA
Manju Tanwar
Affiliation:
Center for Public Health Preparedness, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina USA
Jane V.E. Richter
Affiliation:
Center for Public Health Preparedness, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina USA
*
Department of Health Promotion, Education, and BehaviorArnold School of Public HealthUniversity of South Carolina800 Sumter StreetColumbia, South Carolina 29208USA E-mail: dfriedma@gwm.sc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Increasingly, individuals are relying on the Internet as a major source of health information. When faced with sudden or pending disasters, people resort to the Internet in search of clear, current, and accurate instructions on how to prepare for and respond to such emergencies. Research about online health resources ascertained that information was written at the secondary education and college levels and extremely difficult for individuals with limited literacy to comprehend. This content analysis is the first to assess the reading difficulty level and format suitability of a large number of disaster and emergency preparedness Web pages intended for the general public.

Objectives:

The aims of this study were to: (1) assess the readability and suitability of disaster and emergency preparedness information on the Web; and (2) determine whether the reading difficulty level and suitability of online resources differ by the type of disaster or emergency and/or Website domain.

Methods:

Fifty Websites containing information on disaster and/or emergency preparedness were retrieved using the GoogleTM search engine. Readability testing was conducted on the first Web page, suggested by GoogleTM, addressing preparedness for the general public. The reading level was assessed using Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) measures. The Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) instrument was used to evaluate additional factors such as graphics, layout, and cultural appropriateness.

Results:

The mean F-K readability score of the 50 Websites was Grade 10.74 (95% CI = 9.93, 11.55). The mean FRE score was 45.74 (95% CI = 41.38, 50.10), a score considered “difficult”. A Web page with content about both risk and preparedness supplies was the most difficult to read according to F-K (Grade level = 12.1). Web pages with general disaster and emergency information and preparedness supplies were considered most difficult according to the FRE (38.58, 95% CI = 30.09, 47.08). The average SAM score was 48% or 0.48 (95% CI = 0.45, 0.51), implying below average suitability of these Websites. Websites on pandemics and bioterrorism were the most difficult to read (F-K: p = 0.012; FRE: p = 0.014) and least suitable (SAM: p = 0.035) compared with other disasters and emergencies.

Conclusions:

The results suggest the need for readily accessible preparedness resources on the Web that are easy-to-read and visually appropriate. Interdisciplinary collaborations between public health educators, risk communication specialists, and Web page creators and writers are recommended to ensure the development and dissemination of disaster and emergency resources that consider literacy abilities of the general public.

Keywords

communicationdisasteremergenciesliteracyonline resourcespreparednessreadabilityWebsites
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 438 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Fox, S: Online Health Search 2006. Available at http://www.pewinternet. org/PPF/r/190/report_display.asp. Accessed 01 November 2007.Google Scholar
2.Hesse, BW, Nelson, DE, Kreps, GL, 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. Arch Intern Med 2005;165(22:2618–2624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Kutner, M, Greenberg, E, Jin, Y, Paulsen, C: The Health Literacy of America's Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–483). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2006.Google Scholar
4.Birru, MS, Monaco, VM, Charles, L, et al. : Internet usage by low-literacy adults seeking health information: An observational analysis. J Med Internet Res 2004;6(3):e25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Slaughter, L, Keselman, A, Kushniruk, A, et al. : A framework for capturing the interactions between laypersons' understanding of disease, information gathering behaviors, and actions taken during an epidemic. J Biomed Inform 2005;38(4:298–313.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Wray, RJ, Kreuter, MW, Jacobsen, H, et al. : Theoretical perspectives on public communication preparedness for terrorist attacks. Fam Community Health 2004;27(3:232–241.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Friedman, DB, Tanner, A: Rading difficulty level of medical resources on television Web sites: Recommendations for a social practices approach to consumer health literacy. J Consum Health Internet 2007;11(4:43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L, Arocha, JF: Health literacy and the World Wide Web: Comparing the readability of leading incident cancers on the Internet. Med Inform Internet Med 2006;31(1:67–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Nielsen NetRatings. Search Engine Ratings 2006. Available at http://searchenginewatch.com/reports/article.php/2156451. Accessed 01 November 2007.Google Scholar
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency: Learn about the types of disasters. Available at http://www.fema.gov/hazard/types.shtm. Accessed 01 June 2007.Google Scholar
11.Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L: A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and Web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 2006;33(3:352–373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Kincaid, JP, Fishburne, RP, Rogers, RL, et al. : Derivation of New Readability Formula for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Millington, TN: Navy Research Branch; 1975.Google Scholar
13.Flesch, R: A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L, Arocha, JF: Readability of cancer information on the internet. J Cancer Educ 2004;19(2:117–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Doak, CC, Doak, LG, Root, JH: Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills. 2nd ed.Philadephia: Lippincott, 1996, pp 41–60.Google Scholar
16.Kaphingst, KA, Zanfini, CJ, Emmons, KM: Accessibility of Web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2006;17(2:147–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Wallace, LS, Rogers, ES, Turner, LW et al. : Suitability of written supplemental materials available on the Internet for nonprescription medications.Am JHealth Syst Pharm 2006;63(1:71–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Wallace, LS, Turner, LW, Ballard, JE, et al. : Evaluation of Web-based osteoporosis educational materials. J Womens Health 2005;14(10:936–945.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Miller, MG, Millar, KU: The influence of informational and performance messages on intentions to perform health behaviors. Psychology, Health & Medicine 1998;3:243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Kools, M, van de Wiel, MW, Ruiter, RA, et al. : Pictures and text in instructions for medical devices: effects on recall and actual performance. Patient Educ Couns 2006;64(1-3):104–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Kripalani, S, Sharma, J, Justice, E, et al. : Low-literacy interventions to promote discussion of prostate cancer: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med 2007;33(2:83–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Houts, PS, Doak, CC, Doak, LG, et al. : The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Educ Couns 2006;61(2:173–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Doak, LG, Doak, CC, Meade, CD: Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1996;23(8:1305–1312.Google ScholarPubMed
24.Roubidoux, MA: Breast cancer detective: A computer game to teach breast cancer screening to Native American patients. J Cancer Educ 2005;20(Suppl 1):87–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Borrayo, EA: Where's Maria? A video to increase awareness among breast cancer and mammography screening among low-literacy Latinas. Prev Med 2004;39(1:99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Carter-Pokras, O, Zambrana, RE, Mora, SE, et al. : Emergency preparedness: Knowledge and perceptions of Latin American immigrants. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2007;18(2:465–481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Zarcadoolas, C., Pleasant, A, Greer, DS: Understanding health literacy: an expanded model. Health Promot Int 2005;20(2:195–203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Kreuter, MW, Strecher, VJ, Glassman, B: One size does not fit all: The case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med 1999;21(4:276–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Fogel, J, Albert, SM, Schnabel, F, et al. : Racial/ethnic differences and potential psychological benefits in use of the internet by women with breast cancer. Psychooncology 2003;12(2:107–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Hoffman-Goetz, L, Donelle, L: Chat room computer-mediated support on health issues for aboriginal women.Health Care Women Int 2007;28(4:397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.Eisenman, DP, Cordasco, KM, Asch, S, Golden, JF, Glik, D: Disaster planning and risk communication with vulnerable communities: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina. Am J Public Health 2007;97(Suppl 1):s109–s115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Andrulis, DP, Siddiqui, NJ, Gantner, JL: Preparing racially and ethnically diverse communities for public health emergencies.Health Aff 2007;26(5:1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.Shiu-Thornton, S, Balabis, J, Senturia, K, et al. : Disaster preparedness for limited English proficient communities: Medical interpreters as cultural brokers and gatekeepers. Public Health Rep 2007;122(4:466–471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Becker, SM: Emergency communication and information issues in terrorist events involving radioactive materials. Biosecur Bioterror 2004;2(3:195–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Lowrey, W, Evans, W, Gower, KK, et al. : Effective media communication of disasters: Pressing problems and recommendations. BMC Public Health 2007;7:97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Lowrey, W, Gower, K, Evans, W, et al. : Assessing newspaper preparedness for public health emergencies. Journalism Mass Commun Q 2006;83(2:362–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37.Friedman, DB, Hoffman-Goetz, L: An assessment of older adults'comprehension of cancer information on the Internet: Is readability a key factor? J Health Commun 2007;12(5:423–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Bates, BR, Romina, SM, Ahmed, R: The effect of improved readability scores on consumers' perceptions of the quality of health information on the Internet. J Cancer Educ 2007;22(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed