19776

Kolorektal Kanser Hakkında Bilgi İçeren İnternet Sitelerinin Okunabilirliği

Amaç: Kolorektal kanser (KRK), dünya çapında görülen üçüncü en yaygın kanserdir. Biz bu çalışmamızda, KRK konusunda çevrimiçi sitelerin okunabilirlik değerlerini Türkçe için dizayn edilmiş Ateşman ve Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik formüllerine göre incelemeyi ve bu sitelerin içeriklerini değerlendirmeyi amaçladık.Materyal ve Metod: Bu araştırma tanımlayıcı tipte bir araştırma olup, araştırmanın verilerine ülkemizde en sık kullanılan arama motoru olan Google (www.google.com.tr) aracılığı ile ulaşılmıştır. Haziran 2019 tarihinde “kolon kanseri”, “rektum kanseri” ve “kalın bağırsak kanseri” anahtar kelimeleri arama motorunda tek tek yazılarak arama yapılmış ve karşımıza çıkan toplam 1250 internet sitesi incelenmiştir. Bu sitelerden reklam, sadece video ve resim içeren, 10 cümleden daha az bilgi içeren siteler, sohbet ve forum siteleri, ticari satış siteleri ile hastalık hakkında bilgi içermeyen haber siteleri araştırma dışı bırakılmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan sitelerdeki bilgiler kopyalanarak bilgisayar programına aktarılmıştır. Bu program ile Ateşman ile Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik değerleri, cümle sayısı, kelime sayısı, dört ve üzeri heceli kelime sayısı, bir cümledeki ortalama 4 hece ve üstü kelime sayısı ve kelimelerin ortalama hece sayısı hesaplanmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan internet siteleri hazırlayan kişilere göre 4 gruba ayrılmıştır. Hastane ve sağlık profesyonellerinin hazırladıkları siteler birinci grup, haber siteleri ikinci grup, Sağlık Bakanlığı ve derneklerin hazırladıkları siteler üçüncü grup ve bu üç gruba girmeyen siteler dördüncü grup olarak sınıflandırılmıştır.Bulgular: Çalışmaya 59 (%38,1)’u 1. grup, 63(%40,6)’ü 2. grup, 15 (%9,7)’i 3. grup ve 18 (%11,6)’i ise 4. grupta olmak üzere toplam 155 tane internet sitesi alınmıştır. Çalışmaya alınan tüm sitelerin Ateşman okunabilirlik değerlerinin medyan değeri 50,81 [46,65-55,75] idi. Çalışmaya alınan grupların Ateşman okunabilirlik değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p=0,082). Çalışmaya alınan tüm sitelerin Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik değerlerinin medyan değeri 12,32 [10,83-14,29] idi. Çalışmaya alınan grupların Bezirci-Yılmaz okunabilirlik değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark saptanmadı (p=0,166). Sitelerin Ateşman’a göre aldıkları okunabilirlik puanları yine Ateşman’a göre okunabilirlik aralıklarına göre ayrıldı. Çalışma gruplarının Ateşman’a göre okunabilirlik aralıklarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark olduğu tespit edildi (p=0,035). Sonuç: KRK hakkında hazırlanmış Türkçe internet sitelerindeki metinlerin okunabilirlik seviyeleri, ülkemiz sağlık okuryazarlığı ve önerilen akademik seviyenin üzerindedir. Bu sonuç bize KRK hakkında hazırlanmış Türkçe internet sitelerindeki metinlerin anlaşılmasının güç olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Kolorektal kanser, okunabilirlik, internet

Readability of Websites Containing Information About Colorectal Cancer

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer seen worldwide. In this study, we aimed to investigate the readability values of online sites on CRC according to the readability formulas of Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz designed for Turkish and to evaluate the contents of these sites.Materials and Methods: This research is a descriptive type of research and the data of the research is accessed through Google (www.google.com.tr) which is the most commonly used search engine in our country. In June 2019, “colon cancer”, “rectum cancer” and “large bowel cancer" keywords were written separately in the search engine and a total of 1250 websites were searched. Of these sites, those that including only advertising, video and image less than 10 sentences with information, chat and forum sites, commercial sales sites and news sites that do not contain information about the disease were excluded from the research. The information on the sites that included in the study was copied and transferred to the computer program. With this program, the readability values of Ateşman and Bezirci-Yılmaz, the number of sentences, the number of words, the number of words with four and more syllables, the average number of words in a sentence of 4 syllables and over, and the average number of words were calculated. The web sites included in the study were divided into 4 groups according to the people who prepared them. The sites prepared by the hospital and health professionals were classified as the first group, the news sites as the second group, the sites prepared by the Ministry of Health and associations as the third group and the sites that did not fall into these three groups were classified as the fourth group.Results: In this study, 59 (38.1%) were in Group 1, 63 (40.6%) were in Group 2, 15 (9.7%) were in the third group and 18 (11.6%) were a total of 155 websites were included in the fourth group. The median of Ateşman readability values of all the sites included in the study was 50.81 [46.65-55.75]. There was no statistically significant difference between Ateşman readability values of the groups included in the study (p = 0.082). The median of Bezirci-Yılmaz readability values of all sites included in the study was 12,32 [10,83-14,29]. There was no statistically significant difference between the readability values of the Bezirci-Yılmaz groups (p = 0.166). The readability scores of the sites according to Ateşman were again divided according to the readability ranges according to Ateşman. There was a statistically significant difference in the readability intervals of the study groups according to Ateşman (p = 0.035). Conclusion: The readability levels of the texts on Turkish websites prepared about CRC are above the health literacy level and recommended the academic level of our country. This result suggests us that the texts in Turkish websites regarding CRC are difficult to understand.

PDF

___

Referans1. Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends—an update. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2016;25(1):16-27.
Referans2. Edwards BK, Noone AM, Mariotto AB, Simard EP, Boscoe FP, Henley SJ, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2010, featuring prevalence of comorbidity and impact on survival among persons with lung, colorectal, breast, or prostate cancer. Cancer. 2014;120(9):1290-314.
Referans3. Bosetti C, Bertuccio P, Malvezzi M, Levi F, Chatenoud L, Negri E, et al. Cancer mortality in Europe, 2005–2009, and an overview of trends since 1980. Annals of oncology. 2013;24(10):2657-71.
Referans4. Bialik K, Matsa KE. Key trends in social and digital news media. Pew Research Center. 2017;4.
Referans5. Eysenbach G. Credibility of health information and digital media: New perspectives and implications for youth. Digital media, youth, and credibility. 2008:123-54.
Referans6. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior. 2006;33(3):352-73.
Referans7. Yesilyurt M, Karadeniz O, Gulel F, Caglar A, Uyar S. Mean and expected years of schooling for provinces in Turkey. PJESS. 2016;3(1):1-7.
Referans8. Ateşman E. Measuring readability in Turkish. AU Tömer Language Journal. 1997;58:171-4.
Referans9. Bezirci B, Yılmaz A. A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEÜ FMD. 2010;12(3):49-62.
Referans10. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of applied psychology. 1948;32(3):221.
Referans11. Koch-Weser S, Bradshaw YS, Gualtieri L, Gallagher SS. The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication. Journal of health communication. 2010;15(sup3):279-93.
Referans12. Basch EM, Thaler HT, Shi W, Yakren S, Schrag D. Use of information resources by patients with cancer and their companions. Cancer: Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society. 2004;100(11):2476-83.
Referans13. 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. 2002;324(7337):573-7.
Referans14. Huang GJ, Penson DF. Internet health resources and the cancer patient. Cancer investigation. 2008;26(2):202-7.
Referans15. Mancuso JM. Health literacy: a concept/dimensional analysis. Nursing & health sciences. 2008;10(3):248-55.
Referans16. Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA: a cancer journal for clinicians. 2002;52(3):134-49.
Referans17. Brewer NT, Tzeng JP, Lillie SE, Edwards AS, Peppercorn JM, Rimer BK. Health literacy and cancer risk perception: implications for genomic risk communication. Medical Decision Making. 2009;29(2):157-66.
Referans18. Hernandez LM, Hewitt M. Implications of health literacy for public health: Workshop summary: National Academies Press; 2014.
Referans19. Dolan NC, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Fitzgibbon ML, Rademaker A, Liu D, et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2004;22(13):2617-22.
Referans20. Lindau ST, Tomori C, Lyons T, Langseth L, Bennett CL, Garcia P. The association of health literacy with cervical cancer prevention knowledge and health behaviors in a multiethnic cohort of women. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2002;186(5):938-43.
Referans21. Bennett CL, Ferreira MR, Davis TC, Kaplan J, Weinberger M, Kuzel T, et al. Relation between literacy, race, and stage of presentation among low-income patients with prostate cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 1998;16(9):3101-4.
Referans22. Hoc A. Committee on Health Literacy for the American Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. Health literacy: Report of the council on scientific affairs. Jama. 1999;281(6):552-7.
Referans23. Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M, Lazard A, Agrawal D. Readability, suitability, and health content assessment of web-based patient education materials on colorectal cancer screening. Gastrointestinal endoscopy. 2014;80(2):284-90. e2.