Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T14:11:08.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Glue ear: how good is the information on the World Wide Web?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2016

L Ritchie ,
C Tornari ,
P M Patel  and
R Lakhani
L Ritchie*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
C Tornari
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St George's Hospital, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
P M Patel
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St George's Hospital, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
R Lakhani
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St George's Hospital, St George's Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Miss Lulu Ritchie, ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, Praed Street, London W2 1NY, UK E-mail: lulu.ritchie@nhs.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This paper objectively evaluates current information available to the general public related to glue ear on the World Wide Web.

Methods:

The term ‘glue ear’ was typed into the 3 most frequently used internet search engines – Google, Bing and Yahoo – and the first 20 links were analysed. The first 400 words of each page were used to calculate the Flesch–Kincaid readability score. Each website was subsequently graded using the Discern instrument, which gauges quality and content of literature.

Results:

The websites Webmd.boots.com, Bupa.co.uk and Patient.co.uk received the highest overall scores. These reflected top scores in either readability or Discern instrument assessment, but not both. Readability and Discern scores increased with the presence of a marketing or advertising incentive. The Patient.co.uk website had the highest Discern score and third highest readability score.

Conclusion:

There is huge variation in the quality of information available to patients on the internet. Some websites may be accessible to a wide range of reading ages but have poor quality content, and vice versa. Clinicians should be aware of indicators of quality, and use validated instruments to assess and recommend literature.

Keywords

Glue EarReadabilityInternetDiscernFlesch–Kincaid
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 130 , Issue 2 , February 2016 , pp. 157 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2016 

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

1Simpson, SA, Thomas, CL, van der Linden, MK, Macmillan, H, van der Wouden, JC, Butler, C. Identification of children in the first four years of life for early treatment for otitis media with effusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD004163CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2Joosten, EA, DeFuentes-Merillas, L, de Weert, GH, Sensky, T, van der Staak, CP, de Jong, CA. Systematic review of the effects of shared decision-making on patient satisfaction, treatment adherence and health status. Psychother Psychosom 2008;77:219–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Zhang, NJ, Terry, A, McHorney, CA. Impact of health literacy on medication adherence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Pharmacother 2014;48:741–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Office for National Statistics. Internet Access - Households and Individuals, 2013. In: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_322713.pdf [5 November 2015]Google Scholar
5National Literacy Trust. Literacy: State of the Nation – A picture of literacy in the UK today, 2012. In: http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/assets/0001/2847/Literacy_State_of_the_Nation_-_2_Aug_2011.pdf [5 November 2015]Google Scholar
6Naval Technical Training Command. Research Branch Report 8–75: Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel, 1975. In: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a006655.pdf [5 November 2015]Google Scholar
7Charnock, D, Shepperd, S, Needham, G, Gann, R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:105–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8eBizMBA Guide. Top 15 Most Popular Search Engines 2013. In: http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines [26 November 2013]Google Scholar
9Ademiluyi, G, Rees, CE, Sheard, CE. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the internet. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50:151–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10Landis, JR, Koch, GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11Kuk, G. Digital divide and quality of electronic service delivery in UK local government. Government Information Quarterly 2003;20:353–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2010Google Scholar
13Hasnain-Wynia, R, Wolf MS. Promoting health care equity: is health literacy a missing link? Health Serv Res 2010;45:897–903CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Goslin, RA, Elhassan, HA. Evaluating internet health resources in ear, nose, and throat surgery. Laryngoscope 2013;123:1626–31CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15McKearney, TC, McKearney, RM. The quality and accuracy of internet information on the subject of ear tubes. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2013;77:894–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Swartz, EN. The readability of paediatric patient information materials: are families satisfied with our handouts and brochures? Paediatr Child Health 2010;15:509–13CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Crocco, AG, Villasis-Keever, M, Jadad, AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA 2002;287:2869–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Larner, AJ. Searching the Internet for medical information: frequency over time and by age and gender in an outpatient population in the UK. J Telemed Telecare 2006;12:186–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19Eysenbach, G, Köhler, C. 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. BMJ 2002;324:573–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed