Readability Of Websites Research Articles

Readability of internet-sourced patient education material related to "labour analgesia".

We evaluated the readability of Internet-sourced patient education materials (PEMs) related to “labour analgesia.” In addition to assessing the readability of websites, we aimed to compare commercial, personal, and academic websites.We used the most popular search engine (http://www.google.com) in our study. The first 100 websites in English that resulted from a search for the key words “labour analgesia” were scanned. Websites that were not in English, graphs, pictures, videos, tables, figures and list formats in the text, all punctuation, the number of words in the text is less than 100 words, feedback forms not related to education, (Uniform Resource Locator) URL websites, author information, references, legal disclaimers, and addresses and telephone numbers were excluded.The texts included in the study were assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning Frequency of Gobbledygook (FOG) readability formulae. The number of Latin words within the text was determined.Analysis of 300-word sections of the texts revealed that the mean FRES was 47.54 ± 12.54 (quite difficult), mean FKGL and SMOG were 11.92 ± 2.59 and 10.57 ± 1.88 years of education, respectively, and mean Gunning FOG was 14.71 ± 2.76 (very difficult). Within 300-word sections, the mean number of Latin words was identified as 16.56 ± 6.37.In our study, the readability level of Internet-sourced PEM related to “labour analgesia” was identified to be quite high indicating poor readability.

Quality and readability of websites for patient information on tonsillectomy and sleep apnea

ObjectivesTonsillectomy is a common treatment for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). The Internet allows patients direct access to medical information. Since information on the Internet is largely unregulated, quality and readability are variable. This study evaluates the quality and readability of the most likely visited websites presenting information on sleep apnea and tonsillectomy. MethodsThe three most popular search engines (Google, Bing, Yahoo) were queried with the phrase “sleep apnea AND tonsillectomy.” The DISCERN instrument was used to assess quality of information. Readability was evaluated using the Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES). ResultsOut of the maximum of 80, the average DISCERN quality score for the websites was 55.1 (SD- 12.3, Median- 60.5). The mean score for FRES was 42.3 (SD- 15.9, Median- 45.5), which falls in the range defined as difficult. No website was above the optimal score of 65. The mean score for the FKGL was US grade-level of 10.7 (SD- 1.6, Median- 11.6). Only 4(27%) websites were in the optimal range of 6–8. There was very weak correlation between FRES and DISCERN (r = 0.07) and FKGL and DISCERN (r = 0.21). ConclusionsTonsillectomy is one of the most common surgeries in the US. However, the internet information readily available to patients varies in quality. Additionally, much of the information is above the recommended grade level for comprehension by the public. By being aware of what information patients are reading online, physicians can better explain treatments and address misunderstandings. Physicians may consider using similar methods to test the readability for their own resources for patient education.

Accuracy and Readability of Websites on Kidney and Bladder Cancers.

The aim of this study was to assess the scientific accuracy and the readability level of websites on kidney and bladder cancers. The search engines Google™, Yahoo™ and Bing™ were searched independently by assessors in November 2014 using the following keywords: "bladder cancer", "kidney cancer", "patient bladder cancer", "patient kidney cancer" and "bladder and kidney cancer". Only English-language websites were selected on the bases of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Assessors independently reviewed the findings and evaluated the accuracy and quality of each website by using the DISCERN and the LIDA instruments. The readability of the websites was calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. Sixty-two websites were finally included in the study. The overall accuracy scores varied; for the DISCERN, the range was 28 to 76; out of 80 (mean±SD, 47.1±12.1; median=46.0, interquartile range (IQR)=19.2), and for the LIDA, the range was 52 to 125; out of 144 (mean±SD, 101.9±15.2; median, 103; IQR, 16.5). The creators of these websites were universities and research centres (n=25, 40%), foundations and associations (n=10, 16%), commercial and pharmaceutical companies (n=13, 21%), charities and volunteer work (n=4, 6%) and non-university educational bodies (n=10, 16%). The readability scores (mean±SD) were 11.2±2.2 for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Index and 11.2±1.6 for the Coleman-Liau Readability Index. The accuracy and the quality of the websites on kidney and bladder cancers varied. In most websites, there were deficiencies in clarity of aims, presenting symptoms, investigations and treatment options. The readability matched grades 10-11 literacy levels-a level above the public readability level. The study highlights the needs for further improvement of the online information created for public and patients with kidney and bladder cancers.

Variable Quality and Readability of Patient-oriented Websites on Colorectal Cancer Screening.

The efficacy of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is dependent on participation and subsequent adherence to surveillance. The internet increasingly is used for health information and is important to support decision making. We evaluated the accuracy, quality, and readability of online information on CRC screening and surveillance. A Website Accuracy Score and Polyp Score were developed, which awarded points for various aspects of CRC screening and surveillance. Websites also were evaluated using validated internet quality instruments (Global Quality Score, LIDA, and DISCERN), and reading scores. Two raters independently assessed the top 30 websites appearing on Google.com. Portals, duplicates, and news articles were excluded. Twenty websites were included. The mean website accuracy score was 26 of 44 (range, 9-41). Websites with the highest scores were www.cancer.org, www.bowelcanceraustralia.org, and www.uptodate.com. The median polyp score was 3 of 10. The median global quality score was 3of 5 (range, 2-5). The median overall LIDA score was 74% and the median DISCERN score was 45, both indicating moderate quality. The mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 11th grade, rating the websites as difficult to read, 30% had a reading level acceptable for the general public (Flesch Reading Ease > 60). There was no correlation between the Google rank and the website accuracy score (rs= -0.31; P= .18). There is marked variation in quality and readability of websites on CRC screening. Most websites do not address polyp surveillance. The poor correlation between quality and Google ranking suggests that screenees will miss out on high-quality websites using standard search strategies.

Communication of information about oral and oropharyngeal cancer: the quality of online resources

AbstractAimTo critically appraise the content, quality and readability of websites that provide online information about oral and oropharyngeal cancer and are accessible by people diagnosed with that condition.Material and methodsThree popular search engines were used to find websites providing information about oral and oropharyngeal cancer, and all links that presented on the first page of the search were analysed. Included sites were assessed for content (intended audience, and evidence of quality assurance). The validated DISCERN tool was used to assess the quality of sites. A readability score was calculated. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 162 web sites were examined. The majority (87%) were written for a clinical audience. Most (89%) did not display evidence of quality assurance. The median overall quality (DISCERN) score was 2.0, indicating potentially serious shortcomings. There was a correlation between the DISCERN scores and evidence of quality assurance certification, but this was not seen for readability.ConclusionThe quality of online information that may be accessed by people with oral and oropharyngeal cancer when seeking information online remains poor.

Infant Feeding Websites and Apps: A Systematic Assessment of Quality and Content.

BackgroundInternet websites and smartphone apps have become a popular resource to guide parents in their children’s feeding and nutrition. Given the diverse range of websites and apps on infant feeding, the quality of information in these resources should be assessed to identify whether consumers have access to credible and reliable information.ObjectiveThis systematic analysis provides perspectives on the information available about infant feeding on websites and smartphone apps.MethodsA systematic analysis was conducted to assess the quality, comprehensibility, suitability, and readability of websites and apps on infant feeding using a developed tool. Google and Bing were used to search for websites from Australia, while the App Store for iOS and Google Play for Android were used to search for apps. Specified key words including baby feeding, breast feeding, formula feeding and introducing solids were used to assess websites and apps addressing feeding advice. Criteria for assessing the accuracy of the content were developed using the Australian Infant Feeding Guidelines.ResultsA total of 600 websites and 2884 apps were screened, and 44 websites and 46 apps met the selection criteria and were analyzed. Most of the websites (26/44) and apps (43/46) were noncommercial, some websites (10/44) and 1 app were commercial and there were 8 government websites; 2 apps had university endorsement. The majority of the websites and apps were rated poor quality. There were two websites that had 100% coverage of information compared to those rated as fair or poor that had low coverage. Two-thirds of the websites (65%) and almost half of the apps (47%) had a readability level above the 8th grade level.ConclusionsThe findings of this unique analysis highlight the potential for website and app developers to merge user requirements with evidence-based content to ensure that information on infant feeding is of high quality. There are currently no apps available to consumers that address a variety of infant feeding topics. To keep up with the rapid turnover of the evolving technology, health professionals need to consider developing an app that will provide consumers with a credible and reliable source of information about infant feeding, using quality assessment tools and evidence-based content.

Clearly written, easily comprehended? The readability of websites providing information on epilepsy

There is a general need for high-quality, easily accessible, and comprehensive health-care information on epilepsy to better inform the general population about this highly stigmatized neurological disorder. The aim of this study was to evaluate the health literacy level of eight popular English-written websites that provide information on epilepsy in quantitative terms of readability. Educational epilepsy material on these websites, including 41 Wikipedia articles, were analyzed for their overall level of readability and the corresponding academic grade level needed to comprehend the published texts on the first reading. The Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) was used to assess ease of comprehension while the Gunning Fog Index, Coleman–Liau Index, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Automated Readability Index, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scales estimated the corresponding academic grade level needed for comprehension. The average readability of websites yielded results indicative of a difficult-to-fairly-difficult readability level (FRE results: 44.0±8.2), with text readability corresponding to an 11th academic grade level (11.3±1.9). The average FRE score of the Wikipedia articles was indicative of a difficult readability level (25.6±9.5), with the other readability scales yielding results corresponding to a 14th grade level (14.3±1.7). Popular websites providing information on epilepsy, including Wikipedia, often demonstrate a low level of readability. This can be ameliorated by increasing access to clear and concise online information on epilepsy and health in general. Short “basic” summaries targeted to patients and nonmedical users should be added to articles published in specialist websites and Wikipedia to ease readability.

Readability of websites containing information on dental implants

It is recommended that health-related materials for patients be written at sixth grade level or below. Many websites oriented toward patient education about dental implants are available, but the readability of these sites has not been evaluated. To assess readability of patient-oriented online information on dental implants. Websites containing patient-oriented information on dental implants were retrieved using the Google search engine. Individual and mean readability/grade levels were calculated using standardized formulas. Readability of each website was classified as easy (≤ 6th-grade level) or difficult (≥ 10th grade level). Thirty nine websites with patient-oriented information on dental implant were found. The average readability grade level of these websites was 11.65 ± 1.36. No website scored at/below the recommended 6th grade level. Thirty four of 39 websites (87.18%) were difficult to read. The number of characters, words, and sentences on these sites varied widely. All patient-oriented websites on dental implants scored above the recommended grade level, and majority of these sites were "difficult" in their readability. There is a dire need to create patient information websites on implants, which the majority can read.

A Method for the Design and Development of Medical or Health Care Information Websites to Optimize Search Engine Results Page Rankings on Google

BackgroundThe Internet is a widely used source of information for patients searching for medical/health care information. While many studies have assessed existing medical/health care information on the Internet, relatively few have examined methods for design and delivery of such websites, particularly those aimed at the general public.ObjectiveThis study describes a method of evaluating material for new medical/health care websites, or for assessing those already in existence, which is correlated with higher rankings on Google's Search Engine Results Pages (SERPs).MethodsA website quality assessment (WQA) tool was developed using criteria related to the quality of the information to be contained in the website in addition to an assessment of the readability of the text. This was retrospectively applied to assess existing websites that provide information about generic medicines. The reproducibility of the WQA tool and its predictive validity were assessed in this study.ResultsThe WQA tool demonstrated very high reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.95) between 2 independent users. A moderate to strong correlation was found between WQA scores and rankings on Google SERPs. Analogous correlations were seen between rankings and readability of websites as determined by Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level scores.ConclusionsThe use of the WQA tool developed in this study is recommended as part of the design phase of a medical or health care information provision website, along with assessment of readability of the material to be used. This may ensure that the website performs better on Google searches. The tool can also be used retrospectively to make improvements to existing websites, thus, potentially enabling better Google search result positions without incurring the costs associated with Search Engine Optimization (SEO) professionals or paid promotion.

Abstract P5-12-01: ARE WEB-BASED RESOURCES THE BREAST?: AN EVALUATION OF THE QUALITY OF ONLINE RESOURCES FOR BREAST CANCER PATIENTS

Abstract Background: Cancer patients are increasingly using the internet to seek disease specific information. Our prior studies indicate that a majority of breast cancer patients use the internet to aid decision making and to inform themselves about their disease. Although there is a substantial amount of information available on the internet regarding breast cancer, there are no comprehensive studies evaluating the quality of this information and whether it is adequate to support patients' decision making. The purpose of this study was to apply a validated evaluation tool to evaluate the quality of online breast cancer patient information. Methods: Using the principles of design-based research, an evaluation tool was developed and validated for the purposes of evaluation of web-based patient information. To review the quality of breast cancer information, a list of the top 100 breast cancer websites was systematically compiled using the meta-search engines Yippy and Dogpile, and the search engine Google. The websites were assessed for administration, accountability, authorship, organization, readability, and content. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: Over 2000 hits were initially obtained using the search term “breast cancer” (the most common search term according to our previous studies) in the three search engines. After applying the pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria the “top 100” breast cancer sites were evaluated. The majority of breast cancer websites were administered by commercial businesses (47%) and non-profit organizations (33%). 86% of the websites disclosed ownership, sponsorship, and/or advertising. Only 34% of websites identified the author and 39% cited sources. The average readability of websites was a grade 9 level. The majority of the information was out of date and only 27% of websites had updated their content within the last two years. While 88% of the websites sufficiently covered breast cancer, only 18% addressed prognosis. Conclusions: While a majority of breast cancer patients use the internet to obtain information on their diagnosis and treatment options, this study demonstrates that web-based information is variable and there are distressing gaps in the information available. Although the assessed websites were mostly accurate, there were significant deficits in authorship, attribution, and currency. Of concern, our research has previously demonstrated that patients use authorship and attribution to determine the reliability of web-based information. Additionally, very few websites provided information regarding prognosis, an area research has identified as an important topic sought by breast cancer patients. The results of this study can be used to counsel patients on the strengths and weaknesses of web-based breast cancer information and to empower patients to choose sites likely to enhance their personal knowledge. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-12-01.

Readability of Websites Containing Information About Prostate Cancer Treatment Options

Approximately 90 million American adults have literacy skills that test below a high school reading level. Websites written above this level can pose a challenge for those seeking online information about prostate cancer treatment options. In this study we determine the readability of selected websites using a systematic search process and validated readability formulas. We identified the 3 most popular keywords from 513 terms related to prostate cancer treatment options. We then systematically collected 270 websites from the top 3 search engines, and excluded from study those that were nonEnglish, not primarily text, irrelevant and/or duplicated. We used the Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch Reading Ease to determine scores for each site. A total of 62 unique websites were analyzed. Median Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 12.0 (range 8.0 to 12.0) and median Flesch Reading Ease score was 38.1 (range 0.0 to 65.5). Only 3 sites (4.8%) were written below a high school reading level (less than 9.0). Few websites with discussions on prostate cancer treatment options are written below a high school reading level. This is problematic for a third of Americans who seek to further educate themselves using online resources. Clinicians can use this information to guide their patients to appropriate websites.

Readability of websites containing information about prostate cancer treatment options.

e16544 Background: 90 million adults have literacy skills that test below a high school reading level. Websites written above this level can pose a challenge for those seeking more information about prostate cancer treatment options. In this study, we determine the readability of selected websites, using a systematic search process and validated readability formulas. Methods: We identified the three most popular keywords (“prostate cancer,” “prostatectomy,” and “prostate cancer treatment”) from 513 terms related to prostate cancer treatment options. Three physician searchers (CE, AP, AK) systematically collected 270 websites from the top three search engines, representing 95 % of all internet searches (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). We excluded sites that were non-English, not primarily text, irrelevant and/or duplicated, and then categorized the remaining sites by source (government, academic practice, nonacademic practice, commercial, nonprofit, news, health website, other) and treatment type. We used validated readability instruments, the Flesch-Kincaid (FK) grade level and Flesch reading ease, to calculate scores for each site. We also calculated an intraclass correlation coefficient, in order to assess inter-rater agreement among our three searchers. Results: Sixty-two unique websites were available for analysis. The mean FK grade level of all sites was 11.4 (SD +/- 0.95, range 8.0-12.0), indicating that on average, passages were written at an eleventh grade reading level. The mean Flesch reading ease score on all sites was 35.6 (SD +/- 15.7, range 0.0-65.5), indicating that on average, passages were slightly easier to read than passages more suited for university graduates (0-30). Only three sites (4.8%) were written below a high school reading level (< 9.0). The intraclass correlation coefficient between the three searchers was 0.96 for grade level and 0.97 for reading ease. Conclusions: Few websites with discussions on prostate cancer treatment options are written below a high school reading level. This is problematic for patients with a low literacy level who search online for more information. Clinicans should be aware of this finding and guide patients to websites written at their patient's reading level.

Becoming Visible

Research suggests that lesbians turn to the Internet for information regarding their sexual health. However, limited research has examined the availability of online sexual health resources for this population. This study evaluated the volume, scope, and readability of sexual health information available to lesbians on the Internet. The top three Nielsen-rated search engines were used to identify websites generated using the search term "lesbian sexual health." A content analysis was conducted of 25 unique, functioning websites (46 webpages total) and Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid grade levels were calculated. Nearly one third of the websites were located outside the United States; two were U.S. government sites. Although most sites provided information about sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS (52% to 72%), fewer provided information about safer sex practices (12% to 56%), reproductive cancers (24% to 36%), intimate partner violence (16%), family planning issues (0% to 12%), or other preventive health practices, such as mammograms and gynecological exams (4% to 44%) for lesbians. Readability of websites was much higher than recommended for health materials. Lesbians are in need of comprehensive and reliable sexual health information on the Internet. In particular, sexual health messages written in plain language are needed to encourage safer sex and other preventive practices among lesbians.

Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy

Accessibility is one of six quality criteria articulated by the European Commission in its code of conduct for health websites. Readability plays an integral part in determining a website's accessibility. Health information that is hard to read may remain inaccessible to people with low health literacy. This study aimed to calculate the readability of websites on various causes of disease. The names of 22 health conditions were entered into five search engines, and the readability of the first 10 results for each search were evaluated using Gunning FOG, SMOG, Flesch-Kincaid and Flesch Reading Ease tests (n = 352). Readability was stratified and assessed by search term, search term complexity, top-level domain and paragraph position. The mean reading grade was 12.30, and the mean FRE was 46.08, scores considered ‘difficult’. Websites on certain topics were found to be even harder to read than average. Where conditions had multiple names, searching for the simplest one led to the most readable results. Websites with .gov and .nhs TLDs were the most readable while .edu sites were the least. Within texts, a trend of increasing difficulty was found with concluding paragraphs being the hardest to read. It was also found that some of the most frequent search results (such as Wikipedia pages) were amongst the hardest to read. Health professionals, with the help of public and specialised libraries, need to create and direct patients towards high-quality, plain language health information in multiple languages.

Combining Concurrent and Sequential Methods to Examine the Usability and Readability of Websites With Information About Medicines

Research of websites with information about medicines has not previously taken sufficient account of the design aspects that may affect user’s interacting with the site. This explanatory study combined four concurrent usability methods (user testing, think aloud protocol, observation, and tracking the participant’s online actions), with a sequential interview to examine five websites. Site design and content were found to obstruct participants’ attempts to locate specific information on the web pages. Draft evidence-based design recommendations were derived which, if implemented, could improve the usability of the websites and the readability of their content. Combining concurrent and sequential methods is probably a novel approach for mixed methods and provides a good base on which future mixed methods could be based.

Readability of Health Related Quality of Life Instruments in Urology

The average American adult reads at a fifth to eighth-grade level, with wide variability, presenting challenges for the assessment of self-reported health related quality of life. We identified the health related quality of life instruments used in patients with urological diseases and evaluated their readability. We focused on the most burdensome urological diseases, based on total expenditures in the United States. We then identified disease specific instruments by systematically searching PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google, Google Scholar, the Patient Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database (Mapi Research Institute, Lyon, France) and Yahoo! for health related quality of life studies in patients with these urological conditions. Where disease specific instruments were lacking, we noted the general health related quality of life measures most commonly used. For each instrument, we calculated the median Flesch-Kincaid grade level, the proportion of questionnaire items below an eighth-grade reading level, the mean Flesch Reading Ease, and the mean number of words per sentence and characters per word, all of which are validated measures of readability. The average +/- SD of the median Flesh-Kincaid reading levels was 6.5 +/- 2.1 (range 1.0 to 12.0). Of the 76 instruments 61 (80%) were at or below an eighth-grade reading level. The mean reading ease was greater than 30 for each of the 76 questionnaires and greater than 60 for 66 (87%). Urinary tract infection, the costliest urological disease, has only 1 disease specific health related quality of life measure. Urolithiasis, the second costliest, has none. The reading level of health related quality of life questionnaires in urology is appropriate for the reading ability of most adults in the United States. However, the most burdensome urological diseases lack disease specific health related quality of life instruments.

Patient information on schizophrenia on the internet

Aims and MethodsThe internet is an important source of mental health information. Given variable literacy levels in the general public, patient information websites need to be easily readable to prevent misunderstanding and consequent misinformation about mental health problems being propagated. the aim was to ascertain the readability of websites containing patient information about schizophrenia. Twenty websites containing patient information about schizophrenia generated by Google® were analysed for Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.ResultsAccording to standardised Flesch Reading Ease classification, 40% of the selected sites were classified as very difficult, 55% as difficult and 5% as fairly difficult. None were considered easy to read. There was a negative correlation of 70.798 (P < 0.001) between Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, which demonstrates the reliability of these results.Clinical ImplicationsEasily accessed schizophrenia information websites do not score highly for readability. Those that produce websites should bear readability in mind when writing them in order to construct more readable sites. Ideally, these should be accredited by recognised organisations that evaluate readability. Clinicians should assess website information for readability before recommending them to patients or carers.

Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet?

To assess the quality of information and readability of the top internet sites for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).An examination of the technical information provision, quality and readability of websites found during an internet search for 'age-related macular degeneration'. Setting Six internet search engines were used to find 26 unique sites on AMD.Technical information and quality were assessed using a simple grading system. Readability was assessed using a Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) rating.Twelve organizational, seven academic and seven commercial sites were identified. The average technical scores were 82.3%, 67.9% and 65.2% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.097, one way ANOVA). The average quality scores were 62.2%, 62.6%, and 49.5% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.356, one-way ANOVA). The average SMOG ratings were 16.3, 16.1, and 16.2 for each type of site, respectively (P=0.983, one-way ANOVA). Fifteen of the sites provided details of new and emerging treatments, with seven providing a detailed discussion.Many websites are now meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive information about AMD and its new treatments. Quality scores were disappointing, with sites needing to provide more evidence of authorship and attribution of information. The majority of sites had SMOG scores above 10, making them difficult for the average person to understand. As physicians we need to help design and direct patients to sites that provide high quality, current information.

Age-related macular degeneration: what do patients find on the internet?

To assess the quality of information and readability of the top internet sites for age-related macular degeneration (AMD). An examination of the technical information provision, quality and readability of websites found during an internet search for 'age-related macular degeneration'. Setting Six internet search engines were used to find 26 unique sites on AMD. Technical information and quality were assessed using a simple grading system. Readability was assessed using a Simple Measure Of Gobbledygook (SMOG) rating. Twelve organizational, seven academic and seven commercial sites were identified. The average technical scores were 82.3%, 67.9% and 65.2% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.097, one way ANOVA). The average quality scores were 62.2%, 62.6%, and 49.5% for each type of site, respectively (P=0.356, one-way ANOVA). The average SMOG ratings were 16.3, 16.1, and 16.2 for each type of site, respectively (P=0.983, one-way ANOVA). Fifteen of the sites provided details of new and emerging treatments, with seven providing a detailed discussion. Many websites are now meeting the challenge of providing comprehensive information about AMD and its new treatments. Quality scores were disappointing, with sites needing to provide more evidence of authorship and attribution of information. The majority of sites had SMOG scores above 10, making them difficult for the average person to understand. As physicians we need to help design and direct patients to sites that provide high quality, current information.

An Evaluation of Internet Websites Provided by Radiotherapy Departments

AbstractThe research identifies and evaluates the content and readability of Websites of all radiotherapy departments that provide a Website. As more patients are being referred for radiotherapy treatment each year, the information needs of the public on this subject is growing. Fifty-two per cent of radiotherapy departments within the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were identified as providing a Website. These Websites were evaluated, over a period of 2 weeks, using an adapted Website evaluation tool. Five criteria – content, authority, navigation, design and technical aspects – were identified as important aspects of a Website. For each criterion a number of statements were listed and using a Likert scale were marked. Flesch–Kincaid readability tests were used to analyse the readability level of the Websites. Data analysis resulted in the ranking of the Websites. Evaluation scores varied greatly and the readability tests showed 92% of the Websites were written at a level too high for the public. This shows the varying quality of radiotherapy department Websites with scores ranging from 48 to 115, and the varying readability level of these Websites. The research makes suggestions for the improvement of radiotherapy department Websites including the provision of a dedicated Website team within the department, educated in Website design.