Quality, readability, and understandability of internet-based information on cataract
- 24 Downloads
Cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. The Internet is a major source of health information for patients and their families. Here, we determine the quality, content, and readability of health information related to cataracts on the Internet. The quality, content, readability, and popularity of health information on cataracts were assessed using different validated questionnaires and tools. The search term “cataract” was used in the three most common search engines on the Internet Google.com (Mountain View, CA), Bing.com (Redmond, WA), and Yahoo.com (Sunnyvale, CA). We initially included 30 websites from each search engine. After excluding duplicate and unrelated websites, 24 websites were included in the final analyses. Quality of health information was assessed using three validated instruments: the DISCERN questionnaire, the JAMA Benchmark criteria, and the Health On Net code. Content was evaluated via a checklist extrapolated from different resources to cover critical elements related to cataracts. Readability was assessed using three different readability scores. The average DISCERN score for all websites was 46 out of 80, and the JAMA Benchmark criteria were suboptimal with an average score of 1.125 out of 4. The majority of the websites (20; 83.3%) possessed a Health On Net certificate. Readability was challenging; the average grade level was suitable for secondary grades and beyond. The quality of health information on cataracts is widely variable but weak overall. A standardized method for writing and revising cataract health information on the Internet should be adopted.
KeywordsCataract Health information Quality Patient education
MA proposed the research idea and conduct DISCERN and HON analyses as well as participated in the drafting the manuscript and approved the final draft prior submission. AJ conducted the data analysis and edited the manuscript; and approved the final draft prior submission.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Gilbert C, Foster A. Childhood blindness in the context of VISION 2020- the right to sight. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:227–32.Google Scholar
- 5.Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 Research Group, Huynh N, Nicholson BP, Agron E, Clemons TE, Bressler SB, et al. Visual acuity after cataract surgery in patients with age-related macular degeneration: age-related eye disease study 2 report number 5. Ophthalmology. 2014;121:1229–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Pew Research Center [http://www.pewresearch.org] Accessed 13 Nov 2017
- 12.Visscher KL, Hutnik CM, Thomas M. Evidence-based treatment of acute infective conjunctivitis: breaking the cycle of antibiotic prescribing. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55:1071–5.Google Scholar
- 14.Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J. 2010;10:38–43.Google Scholar
- 15.Statista [https://www.statista.com] Accessed on 13 Nov 2017.
- 20.Health on the Net Foundation. The HON Code of Conduct for Medical and Health Web sites (HON- code). [healthonnet.org/ HONcode]. Accessed 13 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
- 21.Internet World Stats - Usage and Population Statistics [internetworldstats.com/stats]. Accessed 16 Nov 2017.
- 23.The World Factbook. [cia.gov] Accessed on 17 Nov 2017.Google Scholar