Quality and Readability of Online Patient Information on Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction

Overview

Journal BJUI Compass

Date 2022 Apr 27

PMID 35474701

Authors

Trent A Pattenden

Rachael A Raleigh

Elle R Pattenden

Isaac A Thangasamy

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction using a Google search.

Materials And Methods: The results of a Google search for "erectile dysfunction treatment" were reviewed. Webpages that contained written information on erectile dysfunction except those containing scientific publications and paywall protected webpages were included in further analysis. Typographic and treatment information were recorded. Readability was assessed using the Fleisch-Kincaid grade level, the Gunning-Fog index, the Coleman-Liau index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Website quality was assessed using the DISCERN instrument, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and presence of Health on the net (HON) code certification. Website typography, discussed treatment types, readability scores, and quality measures were reported. Parametric and nonparametric statistical tests were used to compare the data as appropriate dependent on the normality of data.

Results: Eighty-one webpages were included. Urologists and hospitals were the most common producers with 15 (18%) each. Seventy-four (91%) webpages contained specific information on treatment for erectile dysfunction and 15 (19%) contained advertisements. Seventeen (21%) webpages were HON code certified. The median DISCERN score was 35 (IQR 26.5-44) out of 80. The mean combined readability score was 12.32 (SD 1.91). The median JAMA benchmark score was 1 (IQR 1-2) out of 4. Google rank had a small negative correlation with DISCERN score ( = -0.16, = .036). HON code certified webpages had higher DISCERN scores (median of 44 [IQR 35-58.5] vs 32.5 [IQR 25.25-42.25], U = 832, Z = 6561, < .001). A linear regression was used to predict DISCERN score based on meeting each JAMA benchmark criterion (F(2, 78) = 22.7, < .001) = 0.368, < .001. Within this model the effects of meeting attribution ( = 11.09) and currency ( = 8.79) criterion were significant.

Conclusions: The quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction is generally poor. However, easy to identify markers of quality like HON code certification, or meeting JAMA benchmark criterion for attribution and currency may help patients to navigate to better quality online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. Webpages are written at senior high school level, above any recommendations for patient medical information. Health professionals should use validated instruments to assess the quality of online information on treatment for erectile dysfunction prior to publication to improve their utility for patients.

Citing Articles

Analysis of the quality of information provided by "Dr. YouTube™" on premature ejaculation.

Singh S, Neupane B, Dhungel O, Sharma P Ind Psychiatry J. 2024; 33(Suppl 1):S36-S44.

PMID: 39534145 PMC: 11553584. DOI: 10.4103/ipj.ipj_333_23.

Online Provision of and Health Information: A Search Engine Driven Systematic Web-Based Analysis.

Gootzen T, Kalra A, Sarig K, Sobocan M, Oxley S, Dworschak N Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(13).

PMID: 39001386 PMC: 11240379. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16132324.

Comprehensiveness of online sources for patient education on hereditary hearing impairment.

Duymaz Y, Tekin A, DHaese P, Sahin S, Erkmen B, Cirik A Front Pediatr. 2023; 11:1147207.

PMID: 37404560 PMC: 10315533. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2023.1147207.

Quality and benefits of the erectile dysfunction information on websites, social-media, and applications.

Russo G, Asmundo M, Durukan E, Fode M Int J Impot Res. 2023; 36(7):688-692.

PMID: 37369784 DOI: 10.1038/s41443-023-00725-1.

Accuracy of prostate cancer screening recommendations for high-risk populations on YouTube and TikTok.

Abramson M, Feiertag N, Javidi D, Babar M, Loeb S, Watts K BJUI Compass. 2023; 4(2):206-213.

PMID: 36816146 PMC: 9931542. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.200.

References

Frederick L, Cakir O, Arora H, Helfand B, McVary K . Undertreatment of erectile dysfunction: claims analysis of 6.2 million patients. J Sex Med. 2014; 11(10):2546-53. DOI: 10.1111/jsm.12647. View

Kim S, Gross C, Shah N, Tilburt J, Konety B, Williams S . Perceptions of Barriers Towards Active Surveillance for Low-Risk Prostate Cancer: Results From a National Survey of Radiation Oncologists and Urologists. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018; 26(2):660-668. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-018-6863-1. View

Pattenden T, Raleigh R, Pattenden E, Thangasamy I . Quality and readability of online patient information on treatment for erectile dysfunction. BJUI Compass. 2022; 2(6):412-418. PMC: 8988690. DOI: 10.1002/bco2.87. View

Burnett A, Nehra A, Breau R, Culkin D, Faraday M, Hakim L . Erectile Dysfunction: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 2018; 200(3):633-641. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2018.05.004. View

Hanley B, Brown P, ONeill S, Osborn M . Assessment of the quality and readability of online information on autopsy for the general public: a cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open. 2019; 9(5):e023804. PMC: 6549648. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023804. View

Alsaiari A, Joury A, Aljuaid M, Wazzan M, Pines J . The Content and Quality of Health Information on the Internet for Patients and Families on Adult Kidney Cancer. J Cancer Educ. 2016; 32(4):878-884. DOI: 10.1007/s13187-016-1039-9. View

Wong C, Harrison C, Britt H, Henderson J . Patient use of the internet for health information. Aust Fam Physician. 2015; 43(12):875-7. View

Chesser A, Woods N, Smothers K, Rogers N . Health Literacy and Older Adults: A Systematic Review. Gerontol Geriatr Med. 2017; 2:2333721416630492. PMC: 5119904. DOI: 10.1177/2333721416630492. View

Betschart P, Zumstein V, Bentivoglio M, Engeler D, Schmid H, Abt D . Readability assessment of online patient education materials provided by the European Association of Urology. Int Urol Nephrol. 2017; 49(12):2111-2117. DOI: 10.1007/s11255-017-1695-7. View

10.

Varady N, Dee E, Katz J . International assessment on quality and content of internet information on osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2018; 26(8):1017-1026. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2018.04.017. View

11.

Srivatsav A, Balasubramanian A, Pathak U, Rivera-Mirabal J, Thirumavalavan N, Hotaling J . Efficacy and Safety of Common Ingredients in Aphrodisiacs Used for Erectile Dysfunction: A Review. Sex Med Rev. 2020; 8(3):431-442. PMC: 7340557. DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.01.001. View

12.

Pruthi A, Nielsen M, Raynor M, Woods M, Wallen E, Smith A . Readability of American online patient education materials in urologic oncology: a need for simple communication. Urology. 2015; 85(2):351-6. PMC: 4308671. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.10.035. View

13.

Colaco M, Svider P, Agarwal N, Eloy J, Jackson I . Readability assessment of online urology patient education materials. J Urol. 2012; 189(3):1048-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.08.255. View

14.

Mozafarpour S, Norris B, Borin J, Eisner B . Assessment of readability, quality and popularity of online information on ureteral stents. World J Urol. 2018; 36(6):985-992. DOI: 10.1007/s00345-018-2179-9. View

15.

Fode M, Nolsoe A, Jacobsen F, Russo G, Ostergren P, Jensen C . Quality of Information in YouTube Videos on Erectile Dysfunction. Sex Med. 2020; 8(3):408-413. PMC: 7471071. DOI: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.05.007. View

16.

Wang L, Miller M, Schmitt M, Wen F . Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2012; 9(5):503-16. DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009. View

17.

Mcinnes N, Haglund B . Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care. 2011; 36(4):173-89. DOI: 10.3109/17538157.2010.542529. View

18.

Silberg W, LUNDBERG G, Musacchio R . 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(15):1244-5. View

19.

Holden C, McLachlan R, Pitts M, Cumming R, Wittert G, Agius P . Men in Australia Telephone Survey (MATeS): a national survey of the reproductive health and concerns of middle-aged and older Australian men. Lancet. 2005; 366(9481):218-24. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66911-5. View

20.

Lee L, Maguire T, Maculaitis M, Emir B, Li V, Jeffress M . Increasing access to erectile dysfunction treatment via pharmacies to improve healthcare provider visits and quality of life: Results from a prospective real-world observational study in the United Kingdom. Int J Clin Pract. 2020; 75(4):e13849. PMC: 8047876. DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.13849. View