Analysis of official websites providing online information on COVID-19 vaccination: readability, content quality, and listing of side effects (Preprint)

An evaluation of the quality of COVID-19 websites in terms of HON principles and using DISCERN tool

BACKGROUND

As many people relied on information from the Internet for official scientific or academically affiliated information during the COVID-19 pandemic, the quality of information on those websites should be good.

OBJECTIVE

The main purpose of this study was to evaluate a selection of COVID-19-related websites for the quality of health information provided.

METHOD

Using Google and Yahoo, 36 English language websites were selected, in accordance with the inclusion criteria. The two tools were selected for evaluation were the Health on the Net (HON) Code and the 16-item DISCERN tool.

RESULTS

Most websites (39%) were related to information for the public, and a small number of them (3%) concerned screening websites in which people could be informed of their possible condition by entering their symptoms. The result of the evaluation by the HON tool showed that most websites were reliable (53%), and 44% of them were very reliable. Based on the assessment results of the Likert-based 16-item DISCERN tool, the maximum and minimum values for the average scores of each website were calculated as 2.44 and 4.25, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Evaluation using two widely accepted tools shows that most websites related to COVID-19 are reliable and useful for physicians, researchers and the public.

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on transcutaneuous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS)

Increasing digitization also raises concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of online health information. In this study, we aimed to examine the readability, reliability, and quality of internet-based patient education materials on "transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation." On September 15, 2022, we used Google search engine to search the keyword "Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation" and obtained information from 200 websites. The readability of the websites was evaluated using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Gunning Fog. The Journal of American Medical Association score and Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct were used to determine the reliability of the websites, whereas the DISCERN score and Global Quality Score were used to evaluate the quality of the websites. In the readability analysis of 102 websites that met the inclusion criteria of this study, we found that the Flesch Reading Ease Score was 47.91 ± 13.79 (difficult), average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook were 11.20 ± 2.85 and 10.53 ± 2.11 years, respectively, and average Gunning Fog score was 14.04 ± 2.74 (very difficult). Commercial websites constituted the highest proportion of websites (n = 36, 35.5%). Overall, 16.7% of the websites were found to be of high quality according to the Global Quality Score, 16 (15.7%) websites had Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct certification, and 8.8% of the websites were found to be highly reliable according to the Journal of American Medical Association scores. There was a statistically significant difference between website typologies and quality and reliability scores (P < .001). Compared with the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and the National Institute of Health, the readability of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation-related internet-based patient education materials was considerably high, but they showed low reliability and moderate-to-poor quality. Thus, the quality, reliability, and readability of websites developed by health professionals play a major role in conveying accurate and easily understandable information.

Evaluating the readability, quality and reliability of online patient education materials on post-covid pain

Background

The use of the Internet to access healthcare-related information is increasing day by day. However, there are concerns regarding the reliability and comprehensibility of this information. This study aimed to investigate the readability, reliability, and quality of Internet-based patient educational materials (PEM) related to "post-COVID-19 pain."

Methods

One-hundred websites that fit the purposes of the study were identified by searching for the terms "post-COVID-19 pain" and "pain after COVID-19" using the Google search engine on February 24, 2022. The website readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), and Gunning FOG (GFOG). The reliability, quality, and popularity of the websites were assessed using the JAMA score, DISCERN score/Health on the Net Foundation code of conduct, and Alexa, respectively.

Results

Upon investigation of the textual contents, the mean FRES was 51.40 ± 10.65 (difficult), the mean FKGL and SMOG were 10.93 ± 2.17 and 9.83 ± 1.66 years, respectively, and the mean GFOG was 13.14 ± 2.16 (very difficult). Furthermore, 24.5% of the websites were highly reliable according to JAMA scores, 8% were of high quality according to GQS values, and 10% were HONcode-compliant. There was a statistically significant difference between the website types and reliability (p = 0.003) and quality scores (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

The readability level of PEM on post-COVID-19 pain was considerably higher than grade 6 educational level, as recommended by the National Institutes of Health, and had low reliability and poor quality. We suggest that Internet-based PEM should have a certain degree of readability that is in accordance with the educational level of the general public and feature reliable content.

COVID-19 Vaccine-related Information Seeking and Scanning: A Test of Mediators between Information Acquisition and Vaccination Intention among Unvaccinated Black Americans

Health information seeking and scanning are two important information acquisition strategies that can influence subsequent health behaviors. This research was contextualized in COVID-19 vaccinations and examined the effects of information seeking and scanning on vaccination intention among unvaccinated Black Americans (N = 1,278). Moreover, this research conceptualized perceived risk and efficacy as the intervening factors for the relationship between information acquisition and behavioral intention. The results indicated that information seeking had a significant effect on vaccination intention, whereas information scanning had no effect. Perceived susceptibility and response efficacy mediated the relationship between information seeking and vaccination intention. The proposed mediators did not mediate the relationship between information scanning and vaccination intention. Theoretical and practical implications are offered.