» Articles » PMID: 33183297

Readability of Online COVID-19 Health Information: a Comparison Between Four English Speaking Countries

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Public Health
Date 2020 Nov 13
PMID 33183297
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: The internet is now the first line source of health information for many people worldwide. In the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, health information is being produced, revised, updated and disseminated at an increasingly rapid rate. The general public are faced with a plethora of misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the readability of online information has an impact on their understanding of the disease. The accessibility of online healthcare information relating to COVID-19 is unknown. We sought to evaluate the readability of online information relating to COVID-19 in four English speaking regions: Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, and compare readability of website source provenance and regional origin.

Methods: The Google® search engine was used to collate the first 20 webpage URLs for three individual searches for 'COVID', 'COVID-19', and 'coronavirus' from Ireland, the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States. The Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Flesch-Kincaid Grade (FKG) Score, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) score were calculated to assess the readability.

Results: There were poor levels of readability webpages reviewed, with only 17.2% of webpages at a universally readable level. There was a significant difference in readability between the different webpages based on their information source (p < 0.01). Public Health organisations and Government organisations provided the most readable COVID-19 material, while digital media sources were significantly less readable. There were no significant differences in readability between regions.

Conclusion: Much of the general public have relied on online information during the pandemic. Information on COVID-19 should be made more readable, and those writing webpages and information tools should ensure universal accessibility is considered in their production. Governments and healthcare practitioners should have an awareness of the online sources of information available, and ensure that readability of our own productions is at a universally readable level which will increase understanding and adherence to health guidelines.

Citing Articles

Assessment of the Quality and Readability of Online Resources on Corneal Transplantation.

Mesen A, Mesen S Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e70819.

PMID: 39493116 PMC: 11531918. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.70819.


Lessons to be learned when designing comprehensible patient-oriented online information about temporomandibular disorders.

Uzuncibuk H, Marrapodi M, Ronsivalle V, Cicciu M, Minervini G J Oral Rehabil. 2024; 52(2):222-229.

PMID: 39034447 PMC: 11740279. DOI: 10.1111/joor.13798.


The Readability and Quality of Web-Based Patient Information on Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma: Quantitative Content Analysis.

Tan D, Ko T, Fan K JMIR Form Res. 2023; 7:e47762.

PMID: 38010802 PMC: 10714271. DOI: 10.2196/47762.


Evaluating understandability and actionability of online education materials for home-care patients with COVID-19 in Japan.

Furukawa E, Okuhara T, Okada H, Sawada N, Kiuchi T BMC Res Notes. 2023; 16(1):291.

PMID: 37880802 PMC: 10601193. DOI: 10.1186/s13104-023-06570-1.


Accessibility and readability of online patient education on cutaneous lymphomas.

Schreidah C, Fahmy L, Lapolla B, Gordon E, Kwinta B, Geskin L JAAD Int. 2023; 13:83-90.

PMID: 37727629 PMC: 10505972. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdin.2023.07.010.


References
1.
San Giorgi M, de Groot O, Dikkers F . Quality and readability assessment of websites related to recurrent respiratory papillomatosis. Laryngoscope. 2017; 127(10):2293-2297. PMC: 5638064. DOI: 10.1002/lary.26521. View

2.
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(7337):573-7. PMC: 78994. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7337.573. View

3.
Bresler R, Lynch N, Connolly M, Keelan S, Richter L, McHugh S . Arteriovenous Fistula for dialysis - Let's Google it. Readability and quality of online information. Surgeon. 2020; 19(1):15-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.02.009. View

4.
Garner M, Ning Z, Francis J . A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets. Health Expect. 2011; 15(3):283-94. PMC: 5060624. DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00665.x. View

5.
Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Kraitem A, Alam M, Karam B, Adib E . Coronavirus Goes Viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 Misinformation Epidemic on Twitter. Cureus. 2020; 12(3):e7255. PMC: 7152572. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.7255. View