Muhammet Furkan KALAYCI, Onur Mert KILIÇ, Erkan ÖZDURAN, Yüksel ERKİN, Volkan HANCI, Asu TAŞTAN, Dilara Deniz TOSUN, Ece Nur SAYAN, Ekin Umut ULUÇAY, Şaban LALE, Uğur SERENGÜL

Bel Ağrısı” ile İlgili Türkçe İnternet Kaynaklı Hasta Eğitim Materyallerinin Okunabilirliklerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: Sağlık ile ilişkili bilgilere ulaşmak için internet kullanımı günden güne artmaktadır. Ancak bu bilgilerin güvenilirliği ve anlaşılırlığı üzerinde endişeler bulunmaktadır. Çalışmamızda bel ağrısı ile ilgili internet kaynaklı Hasta Eğitim Materyallerinin (HEM) okunabilirliğini, güvenilirliğini ve kalitesini araştırmayı amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: 26 Şubat 2022’de Google arama motorunda “Bel ağrısı” terimi aratılarak çalışma için uygun ilk 100 internet sitesi tespit edildi. İnternet-sitelerinin okunabilirlikleri Ateşman okunabilirlik formülüyle değerlendirildi. İnternet-sitelerinin güvenilirlikleri “Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Benchmark” kriter skoru ile, kalite değerlendirmesi DISCERN skoru ve “Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode)” varlığı ve popüleritesi ise ALEXA ile değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Çalışmamızda metin bölümleri incelendiğinde ortalama Ateşman okunabilirlik skorunun 61,09±7,31 (orta güçlükte) olduğu tespit edilmiştir. JAMA skorları ortalama değeri 1,46±0,91 (düşük güvenilir) ve internet sitelerinin %12’si yüksek güvenilir tespit edilmiştir. Ortalama DISCERN skoru 34,08±11,74 (kötü kalite) tespit edilmiştir. %17 internet sitesinde HONcode varlığı tespit edilmiştir. İnternet sitelerin kaynakları ile güvenilirlik ve kalite skorları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılık tespit edilmemiştir (p>0,05). Sonuç: Bel ağrısı ile ilişkili Türkçe internet kaynaklı HEM’nin okunabilirlik düzeyinin orta güçlükte olduğu, düşük güvenilirlik ve kötü kalite içerdiği saptandı. İnternet siteleri hazırlanırken internet kaynaklı HEM’nin halkın eğitim düzeyine uygun okunabilirlik derecesine ve güvenilir içeriğe sahip olması gerektiğini düşünmekteyiz.

EVALUATION OF THE READABILITY OF TURKISH INTERNET-BASED PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS RELATED TO “LOW BACK PAIN”

Introduction: The use of the internet to access health-related information is increasing. However, there are concerns over the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. In our study, we aimed to investigate the readability, reliability and quality of internet-based patient education materials (PEM) about low back pain. Methods: On February 26, 2022, the search term "Low Back Pain" was searched on the Google and the first 100 websites suitable for the study were determined. The readability of the websites was evaluated with the Ateşman readability formula. The reliability of the websites was evaluated by the "Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark" criterion score, the quality assessment was by the DISCERN score and "Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct (HONcode)", and the popularity evaluated by ALEXA. Results: It was determined that the mean±SD Ateşman readability score was 61,09±7,31(moderate difficulty). The mean value of JAMA scores was 1,46±0,91 (low reliability), and 12% of the websites were found to be highly reliable. The mean DISCERN score was 34,08±11,74 (poor quality). The presence of HONcode was detected on 17% of the websites. No statistically significant difference was found between the sources of the websites and their reliability and quality scores (p>0,05). Conclusion: Readability level of the internet-based Turkish PEM associated with low back pain was moderately difficult. The content was found to be of low reliability and poor quality. While preparing the websites, we think that the internet-based PEM should have a readability level and reliable content suitable for the education level of the public.

PDF

___

1. Hayden JA, Ellis J, Ogilvie R, Malmivaara A, van Tulder MW. Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;9(9):CD009790.
2. GBD 2017 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators. Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 354 diseases and injuries for 195 countries and territories, 1990-2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2019 Jun 22;393(10190):e44]. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1789-1858.
3. Grotle M, Brox JI, Veierød MB, Glomsrød B, Lønn JH, Vøllestad NK. Clinical course and prognostic factors in acute low back pain: patients consulting primary care for the first time. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2005;30(8):976-982.
4. Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, Herbert, R. D., Cumming, R. G., Bleasel, J., et al. Characteristics of patients with acute low back pain presenting to primary care in Australia. Clin J Pain. 2009;25(1):5-11.
5. Itz CJ, Geurts JW, van Kleef M, Nelemans P. Clinical course of non-specific low back pain: a systematic review of prospective cohor t studies set in primary care. Eur J Pain. 2013;17(1):5-15.
6. Hartvigsen J, Hancock MJ, Kongsted A, Louw, Q., Ferreira, M. L., Genevay, S., et al. What low back pain is and why we need to pay attention. Lancet. 2018;391(10137):2356-2367.
7. Wenger HC, Cifu AS. Treatment of Low Back Pain. JAMA. 2017;318(8):743-744.
8. Wang SW, Capo JT, Orillaza N. Readability and comprehensibility of patient education material in hand-related web sites. J Hand Surg Am. 2009;34(7):1308-1315
9. Guo WJ, Wang WK, Xu D, Qiao Z, Shi YL, Luo P. Evaluating the Quality, Content, and Readability of Online Resources for Failed Back Spinal Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(7):494-502.
10. Han A, Carayannopoulos AG. Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study. PM R. 2020;12(4):368-373.
11. Guo WJ, Wang WK, Xu D, Qiao Z, Shi YL, Luo P. Evaluating the Quality, Content, and Readability of Online Resources for Failed Back Spinal Surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(7):494-502.
12. Hendrick PA, Ahmed OH, Bankier SS, Chan, T. J., Crawford, S. A., Ryder, C. R. et al. Acute low back pain information online: an evaluation of quality, content accuracy and readability of related websites. Man Ther. 2012;17(4):318-324.
13. Járomi M, Szilágyi B, Velényi A, Leidecker, E., Raposa, B. L., Hock, M. et al. Assessment of health-related quality of life and patient's knowledge in chronic non-specific low back pain. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(Suppl 1):1479.
14. Johnson, 2022. Worldwide desktop market share of leading search engines from January 2010 to January 2022 Available at https://www.statista.com/statistics/216573/world wide-market-share-of-search-engines/ (accessed 01 March 2022).
15. Basavakumar, D., Flegg, M., Eccles, J., Ghezzi, P. Accuracy, completeness and accessibility of online information on fibromyalgia. Rheumatology international, 2019;39(4),735–742.
16. Arif, N., Ghezzi, P. Quality of online information on breast cancer treatment options. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 2018;37, 6–12.
17. Eysenbach, G., Köhler, 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 (Clinical research ed.), 2002;324(7337), 573– 577.
18. Zeldman J. Taking Your Talent to the Web: A Guide for the Transitioning Designer. Indianapolis: New Riders; 2001.
19. 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(2):105-111.
20. Silberg, W. M., Lundberg, G. D., Musacchio, R. A. 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), 1244–1245.
21. Weil, A. G., Bojanowski, M. W., Jamart, J., Gustin, T., Lévêque, M. Evaluation of the quality of information on the Internet available to patients undergoing cervical spine surgery. World neurosurgery, 2014;82(1-2), e31–e39.
22. Boyer, C., Selby, M., Appel, R. D. The Health On the Net Code of Conduct for medical and health web sites. Studies in health technology and informatics, 1998;52 Pt 2, 1163–1166.
23. Boyer, C., Baujard, V., Geissbuhler, A. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Studies in health technology and informatics, 2011;169, 53–57.
24. Walsh T, Volsko T. Readability Assessment of Internet-Based Consumer Health Information. Respiratory Care 2008; 53(10): 1310-5
25. Ay IE, Doğan M. An Evaluation of t he Comprehensibility Levels of Ophthalmology Surgical Consent Forms. Cureus. 2021;13(7):e16639. Published 2021 Jul 26. doi:10.7759/cureus.16639
26. Tan MN, Limnili G, Yıldırım E, Güldal AD. To understand or not to understand: This is the problem. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2018;29(6):642-649. doi:10.5152/tjg.2018.17832
27. Sönmez MG, Sönmez LÖ, Kozanhan B, Dündar ZD. Is There a Difference Between the Readabilities of Informed Consent Forms Used for Elective and Emergency Procedures in Turkey?. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 20 20;54(3):626-630. doi:10.1007/s43441-019-00096-0
28. Keçeci A, Toprak S, Kiliç S. How Effective Are Patient Education Materials in Educating Patients?. Clin Nurs Res. 2019;28(5):567-582. doi:10.1177/1054773817740521
29. Gungor B, Aylin M, Asena A, Somuncuoglu, E. I., Bozkurt, N. B., Ucku, S. R. et al. Evaluation of Legal Legislation Compliance and Readability of Clinical Trial Informed Consent Forms. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020;54(2):468-475. doi:10.1007/s43441-019-00078-2
30. Kent A. E., Tahir E. Baş Dönmesi İle İlg ili İnternet Kaynaklı Hasta Bilgilendirme Metinlerinin Okunabilirlik Düzeyleri. KBB-Forum 2021;20(2):163-170
31. Wald, H. S., Dube, C. E., Anthony, D. C. Untangling the Web--the impact of Internet use on health care and the physician-patient relationship. Patient education and counseling, 2007;68(3), 218– 224.
32. Han A, Carayannopoulos AG. Readability of Patient Education Materials in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R): A Comparative Cross-Sectional Study. PM R. 2020;12(4):368-373.
33. Bujnowska-Fedak MM, Węgierek P. The Impact of Online Health Information on Patient Health Behaviours and Making Decisions Concerning Health. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(3):880.
34. Paterick TE, Patel N, Tajik AJ, Chandrasekaran K. Improving health outcomes through patient education and partnerships with patients. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2017;30(1):112-113.
35. Agarwal N, Hansberry DR, Sabourin V, Tomei KL, Prestigiacomo CJ. A comparative analysis of the quality of patient education materials from medical specialties. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(13):1257-1259.
36. Daraz, L., Morrow, A. S., Ponce, O. J., Farah, W., Katabi, A., Majzoub, A., et al. Readability of Online Health Information: A Meta-Narrative Systematic Review. Am J Med Qual. 2018;33(5):487-492.
37. Şahbaz, H. 1940-2020 döneminde nüfusun eğitim ve kültür özellikleri açısından tunceli ilinin ülkedeki yeri . Erzurum Teknik Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi , 2021;(13) , 70- 106 . DOI: 10.29157/etusbed.956902
38. Çifci H. K. , Kozanhan B. , Solak İ. Madde Bağımlılığı İle İlgili Türkçe İnternet Sitelerinin Okunabilirliğinin Değerlendirilmesi. Bağımlılık Dergisi. 2020; 21(1): 56-63.
39. Eryılmaz, M. , Solak, İ. , Ay, E., Kozanhan, B. Evaluation of Readability of Turkish Websites on Obesity and Bariatric Surgery . Clinical and Experimental Health Sciences , 2022;12 (1) , 41-45 . DOI: 10.33808/clinexphealthsci.763167
40. Yurdakul, O. V., Kilicoglu, M. S., Bagcier, F. Evaluating the reliability and readability of online information on osteoporosis. Archives of endocrinology and metabolism, 2020;2359- 3997000000311.
41. Zhang D, Schumacher C, Harris MB, Bono CM. The Quality and Readability of Information Available on the Internet Regarding Lumbar Fusion. Global Spine J. 2016;6(2):133-138.
42. Bagcier, F., Yurdakul, O. V., Temel, M. H. 2021. Quality and readability of online information on myofascial pain syndrome. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, 2021;25, 61–66.
43. Grewal P, Alagaratnam S. The quality and readability of colorectal cancer information on the internet. Int J Surg. 2013;11(5):410-413.
44. Ceyhan E, Gürhan U, İnci F, Karaismailoğlu E, Yavuz İA, Koçak C, et al. Evaluation of Turkish information about orthopedic disorders on the Internet: a pilot study of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Med J SDU 0000; 00(0): 00-00.
45. Otu M. Karagozoglu S. Investigating the Websites in Turkey that Providing Information on Fibromyalgia Syndrome by Readability, Content and Quality. Turk J Osteoporos 2022;28:19-25
46. Willen RD, Pipitone O, Daudfar S, Jones JD. Comparing quality and readability of online English language information to patient use and perspectives for common rheumatologic conditions. Rheumatol Int. 2020;40(12):2097-2103.
47. Ng MK, Mont MA, Piuzzi NS. Analysis of Readability, Quality, and Content of Online Information Available for "Stem Cell" Injections for Knee Osteoarthritis. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(3):647-651.e2.
48. Kocyigit BF, Koca TT, Akaltun MS. Quality and readability of online information on ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol. 2019;38(11):3269- 3274.