Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T22:14:17.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The readability and reliability of online information about adenoidectomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2021

O Ahmadi  and
A J Wood
O Ahmadi
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Waikato District Health Board, Hamilton, New Zealand
A J Wood*
Affiliation:
Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, Waikato District Health Board, Hamilton, New Zealand Department of Surgery, Waikato Clinical Campus, The University of Auckland, New Zealand Waikato Institute of Surgical Education and Research, Hamilton, New Zealand
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Andrew Wood, Waikato Clinical Campus, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 3200, Hamilton3240, New Zealand E-mail: andrew.wood@auckland.ac.nz Fax: +64 7 839 8681
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

There is limited understanding amongst patients and parents of paediatric patients regarding adenoidectomy. Most patients access health-related information online. The aim of this study was to assess the suitability of online information on adenoidectomy.

Method

The term ‘adenoid’ was used to search Google, and the first 50 websites identified were screened. For each website, the readability and quality were assessed.

Results

Of the 41 websites that met the inclusion criteria, the mean readability scores corresponded to ‘difficult to read’ and university-level reading categories. For the quality of the websites, the mean score corresponded to ‘fair’ with 39 per cent of the websites containing either ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ quality data. The ENT UK information is one of the most readable and reliable online resources.

Conclusion

The online information on adenoidectomy is largely set at an inappropriate readability level and of variable quality. Surgeons should consider assisting their patients with online searches regarding adenoidectomy.

Keywords

AdenoidectomyAdenoidsConsumer Health InformationData AccuracyReadingComprehension
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 11 , November 2021 , pp. 976 - 980
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

Dr A Wood takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Johnston, J, Mahadevan, M, Douglas, RG. Incidence and factors associated with revision adenoidectomy: a retrospective study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2017;103:125–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van den Aardweg, MT, Schilder, AG, Herkert, E, Boonacker, CW, Rovers, MM. Adenoidectomy for recurrent or chronic nasal symptoms in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;2010:CD008282Google Scholar
Ramos, SD, Mukerji, S, Pine, HS. Tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Pediatr Clin North Am 2013;60:793–807CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strocker, AM, Shapiro, NL. Parental understanding and attitudes of pediatric obstructive sleep apnea and adenotonsillectomy. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2007;71:1709–1510.1016/j.ijporl.2007.07.016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
The state of the internet report 2017. In: https://internetnz.nz/state-internet-report-2017 [4 June 2020]Google Scholar
The social life of health information. In: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/15/the-social-life-of-health-information/ [2 June 2020]Google Scholar
Health topics. In: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2011/02/01/health-topics-4/ [10 June 2020]Google Scholar
Pehora, C, Gajaria, N, Stoute, M, Fracassa, S, Serebale-O'Sullivan, R, Matava, CT. Are parents getting it right? A survey of parents’ internet use for children's health care information. Interact J Med Res 2015;4:e1210.2196/ijmr.3790CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powell, J, Inglis, N, Ronnie, J, Large, S. The characteristics and motivations of online health information seekers: cross-sectional survey and qualitative interview study. J Med Internet Res 2011;13:e20CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fahy, E, Hardikar, R, Fox, A, Mackay, S. Quality of patient health information on the internet: reviewing a complex and evolving landscape. Australas Med J 2014;7:24–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corcelles, R, Daigle, CR, Talamas, HR, Brethauer, SA, Schauer, PR. Assessment of the quality of internet information on sleeve gastrectomy. Surg Obes Relat Dis 2015;11:539–44CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haymes, AT. The quality of rhinoplasty health information on the internet. Ann Plast Surg 2016;76:143–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alsaiari, A, Joury, A, Aljuaid, M, Wazzan, M, Pines, JM. The content and quality of health information on the internet for patients and families on adult kidney cancer. J Cancer Educ 2017;32:878–84CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norman, CD, Skinner, HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 2006;8:e27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cline, RJ, Haynes, KM. Consumer health information seeking on the internet: the state of the art. Health Educ Res 2001;16:671–92CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Search engine market share worldwide. In: https://gs.statcounter.com/search-engine-market-share [9 June 2020]Google Scholar
Ybarra, ML, Suman, M. Help seeking behavior and the internet: a national survey. Int J Med Inform 2006;75:29–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eysenbach, G, Kohler, 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
Flesch, RF. How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers And Consumers, 1st edn. New York: Harper & Row, 1979Google Scholar
Flesch, R. A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 1948;32:221–33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gunning, R. The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1952Google Scholar
Gunning Fog Index. In: http://gunning-fog-index.com/index.html [2 February 2020]Google Scholar
Charnock, 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
Silberg, WM, Lundberg, GD, Musacchio, RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 1997;277:1244–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charnock, D, Shepperd, S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004;19:440–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, AG, Bojanowski, MW, Jamart, J, Gustin, T, Leveque, M. Evaluation of the quality of information on the internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World Neurosurg 2014;82:e31–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Discover the 8 principles of the HONcode in 35 languages. In: https://www.hon.ch/cgi-bin/HONcode/principles.pl?English [11 June 2020]Google Scholar
Tonsils and adenoids. In: https://www.enthealth.org/conditions/tonsils-and-adenoids/ [8 March 2020]Google Scholar
Adenoid surgery. In: https://www.entuk.org/adenoid-surgery [2 February 2020]Google Scholar
Adenoidectomy. In: https://www.entcanada.org/education/general-public/public-information-sheets-2/nose/adenoidectomy/ [3 March 2020]Google Scholar
The Australian Society of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. Surgical Removal of The Tonsils and Adenoid: A guide for patients and parents, 9 edn. Australia: Mi-tec Medical Publishing, 2017Google Scholar
Weiss, BD. Health Literacy: A Manual for Clinicians. Chicago: American Medical Foundation, 2003.Google Scholar
The principles of readability. In: http://www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/readability02.pdf [12 March 2020]Google Scholar
Pratt, M, Searles, GE. Using visual aids to enhance physician-patient discussions and increase health literacy. J Cutan Med Surg 2017;21:497–501CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eltorai, AE, Han, A, Truntzer, J, Daniels, AH. Readability of patient education materials on the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine website. Phys Sportsmed 2014;42:125–30CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vital decisions: a pew internet health report. In: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2002/05/22/vital-decisions-a-pew-internet-health-report/ [5 June 2020]Google Scholar
Highly digital consumers are more skeptical of healthcare transparency services. In: https://www.accenture.com/t20171220T024540Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/PDF-27/Accenture-Highly-Digital-Consumers.pdf [1 June 2020]Google Scholar
Crystal, D. Two thousand million? English Today 2008;24:3–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauchak, D, Leroy, G. Moving beyond readability metrics for health-related text simplification. IT Prof 2016;18:45–51CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed