The comparison of readability between information texts from web sites of private clinics and private hospitals

Aim: Rhinoplasty is a surgery which can be done in state hospitals, private hospitals and private clinics. Patients gen-erally go tothe most suitable clinic whereas most surgeons prefer to perform surgery in private clinics. Thus, patients often confuse where toattend. Social media plays a crucial role for patients to decide where and who to choose. We compared readability of the informationtext from internet pages of private clinics and private hos-pitals from both plastic surgeons and otorhinolaryngologists.Material and Methods: The word “Rhinoplasty” was searched through internet and first 30 web sites were taken into account. First100 words from information texts about rhinoplasty from both private clinic and hospital web sites were copied and studied using aprogram called LIDA. Gunnig-Fog index, Flesch-Kincaid and Atesman values were noted and evaluated.Results: The readability of both private hospitals and private clinics were found to be hard. Flesch-Kincaid values showed thatinformation texts from private clinics in web sites (23.24 ± 3.45) were significantly different (p=0,035) than private hospitals (25,19± 3,5). As believed to be more specific to Turkish, Atesman values in private clinics (48,58 ± 16,71) were found to be more readablethan private hospitals (38.81 ± 18.06) (p=0,034).Conclusion: Comparison of information texts between private clinics and private hospitals of plastic surgeons and otorhinolaryngologists showed that Atesman values, which are believed to be more specific to Turkish, and Flesch-Kincaid values weresignificantly high in private clinics suggesting it is easier to understand. To sum it up, infor-mation texts guide patients to privatecritics.

PDF

___

1. Kucukdurmaz F, Mutlu S, Mutlu H, et al.A comparison of the quality of online infor-mation about total knee arthroplasty available in Turkish and English: a cross-sectional study. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2015;49:370-4.
2. Pew Internet & American Life Project (PIALP). Health Information on the Internet, U.S. https://www. pewinternet.org/2009/06/11/the-social-life-ofhealth-information date 2009.
3. Santos PJF, Daar DA, Paydar KZ, et al. Readability of Online Materials for Rhinoplasty. World J Plast Surg 2018;7:89-96.
4. Wozney L, Chorney J, Huguet A, et al. Online Tonsillectomy Resources: Are Parents Getting Consistent and Readable Recommendations? Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2017;156:844-52.
5. Wong K, Levi JR. Readability of pediatric otolaryngology information by children’s hospitals and academic institutions. Laryngoscope 2017;127:138-44.
6. Nassif SJ, Wong K, Levi JR. The Indice Flesch-Szigriszt and Spanish Lexile Ana-lyzer to evaluate Spanish patient education materials in otolaryngology. Laryngoscope 2018;128:21-6.
7. Boztas N, Ozbilgin S, Ocmen E, et al. Anestezi Uygulaması Oncesi Kullanılan Aydınlatılmış Onam Formlarının Okunabilirliklerinin Değer-lendirilmesi: Karşılaştırmalı Bir Calışma. Turk J Anaesth Reanim 2014;42:140-4.
8. Basaran MM, Kuzucu I. Hekim İnternet Sayfalarındaki Rinoplasti Bİlgilendirmel-erinin OKunabilirlik Açısından Farklı Branşlar Bazında Karşılaştırılması. Türkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 2019;39:304-9.
9. Goldbort R. Readable writing by scientists and researchers. J Environ Health 2001;63:40-1.
10. Plaven-Sigray P, Matheson GJ, et al. The Readability of Scientific Texts is Decreasing over Time eLife 2017;6:27725.
11. Atesman E. Türkçe’de okunabilirliğin Ölçülmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Tömer Dergisi 1997;58:171-4.
12. Kessels RPC, Patients’ Memory for Medical Information. J R Son Med 2003;96:219-22.
13. Kitching JB. Patient information leaflets-the state of the art. J R Soc Med 1990;83:298-300.
14. Ozcan FI. Tıbbi müdahalelerde aydınlatılmış onam. PhD Thesis, Marmara Univer-sity, Istanbul, 2008.
15. Serxner S. How readability of patient educationmaterials affects outcomes. J Vasc Nurs 2000;18:97-101.
16. Pothier L, Pothier DD. Patient-orientated web sites on laryngectomy: is their in-formation readable? Eur J Cancer Care 2009;18:594-7.
17. Parmeshwar N, Reid CM, Park AJ, et al. Evalu-ation of Information Sources in Plastic Surgery Decisionmaking. Cureus 2018;9;10:2773.
18. Baser E, Kocagoz GD, Calim OF, et al. Assessment of Patient Satisfaction With Evaluation Methods in Open Technique Septorhinoplasty. J Crani-ofac Surg 2016;27:420-4.
19. 1Boss EF, Mehta N, Nagarajan N, et al. Shared Decision Making and Choice for Elective Surgical Care: A Systematic Review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2016;154:405-20.
20. Tan SS, Goonawardene N. Internet Health Information Seeking and the Patient-Physician Relationship: A Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res 2017;19:9.
21. Durukan, E. Metinlerin Okunabilirlik Düzeyleri ile Öğrencilerin Okuma Becerileri Arasındaki İlişki. Ana Dili Eğitimi Dergisi 2014;2:68-76.