Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Quality and readability of online patient information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Patients often use the internet as a source of information about their condition and treatments. However, this information is unregulated and varies in quality.

Objective

To evaluate the readability and quality of online information for pediatric and adult patients and caregivers regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations.

Materials and methods

“Venous malformation sclerotherapy” was entered into Google, and results were reviewed until 20 sites that satisfied predefined inclusion criteria were identified. Scientific and non-patient-focused web pages were excluded. Readability was assessed using the Flesch Reading Ease Score and American Medical Association reading difficulty recommendations and quality was assessed using Journal of the American Medical Association standards and assessing if the site displayed HONcode (Health on the Net Code) certification. Assessment of the breadth of relevant information was made using a predefined checklist.

Results

Forty-nine search engine results were reviewed before 20 sites were identified for analysis. Average Flesch Reading Ease Score was 44 (range: 24.2–70.1), representing a “fairly difficult” reading level. None of the sites had a Flesch Reading Ease Score meeting the American Medical Association recommendation of 80-90. Only one site met all four Journal of the American Medical Association quality criteria (average: 2.1). None of the sites displayed a HONcode seal. The information most frequently found was: sclerotherapy is performed by radiologists, multiple treatments may be needed and surgery is an alternative treatment.

Conclusion

Online information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations is heterogeneous in quality and breadth of information, and does not meet readability recommendations for patient information. Radiologists should be aware of and account for this when meeting patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stuart S, Barnacle AM, Smith G et al (2014) Neuropathy after sodium tetradecyl sulfate sclerotherapy of venous malformations in children. Radiology 274:897–905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Puig S, Aref H, Chigot V et al (2003) Classification of venous malformations in children and implications for sclerotherapy. Pediatr Radiol 33:99–103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Patton LL, George SF, Hollowell RP (2014) Content, quality, and readability of website information on dental care for patients with cancer. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 118:78–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Number of Internet Users (2016) - Internet Live Stats. http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users/. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  5. Pew Research Center (2013) Internet User Demographics. In: Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. http://www.pewinternet.org/data-trend/internet-use/latest-stats/. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  6. Rainie L, Fox S (2000) The Online Health Care Revolution. In: Pew Research Center Internet & Technology. http://www.pewinternet.org/2000/11/26/the-online-health-care-revolution/. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  7. Cherla DV, Sanghvi S, Choudhry OJ et al (2013) Readability assessment of Internet-based patient education materials related to acoustic neuromas. Otol Neurotol 34:1349–1354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Horbach SE, Ubbink DT, Stubenrouch FE et al (2017) Shared decision-making in the management of congenital vascular malformations. Plast Reconstr Surg 139:725e–734e

  9. General Medical Council Consent guidance: Sharing information and discussing treatment options. http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_sharing_info_discussing_treatment_options.asp. Accessed 14 Jun 2017

  10. Baskin KM, Hogan MJ, Sidhu MK et al (2011) Developing a clinical pediatric interventional practice: a joint clinical practice guideline from the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Pediatric Radiology. J Vasc Interv Radiol 22:1647–1655

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Search engine market share. https://www.netmarketshare.com/search-engine-market-share.aspx?qprid=4&qpcustomd=0. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  12. Jansen BJ, Spink A (2004) Chapter XVI An analysis of documents viewing patterns of Web search engine users. In: Web mining: Applications and techniques. Idea Group Inc (IGI), Hershey, pp 339–354

  13. Flesch R (1948) A new readability yardstick. J Appl Psychol 32:221–233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Cotugna N, Vickery CE, Carpenter-Haefele KM (2005) Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health 30:213–219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Measure the Readability of Text! - Improve your writing and your website marketing with Readability-Score.com. https://readability-score.com/text/. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  16. Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA (1997) Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA 277:1244–1245

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. HONcode: Principles - Quality and trustworthy health information. https://www.healthonnet.org/HONcode/Conduct.html. Accessed 12 Jun 2016

  18. Ripley BA, Tiffany D, Lehmann LS et al (2015) Improving the informed consent conversation: a standardized checklist that is patient centered, quality driven, and legally sound. J Vasc Interv Radiol 26:1639–1646

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Penson RT, Benson RC, Parles K et al (2002) Virtual connections: Internet health care. Oncologist 7:555–568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baker DW, Gazmararian JA, Williams MV et al (2002) Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. Am J Public Health 92:1278–1283

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. National Work Group on Literacy and Health (1998) Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. Report of the National Work Group on Literacy and Health. J Fam Pract 46:168–176

    Google Scholar 

  22. Albright J, de Guzman C, Acebo P et al (1996) Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res 9:139–143

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cooley ME, Moriarty H, Berger MS et al (1995) Patient literacy and the readability of written cancer educational materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 22:1345–1351

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Misra P, Kasabwala K, Agarwal N et al (2012) Readability analysis of internet-based patient information regarding skull base tumors. J Neurooncol 109:573–580

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Finnie RK, Felder TM, Linder SK et al (2010) Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and Web-based materials. J Cancer Educ 25:497–505

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Roshan A, Agarwal S, England RJ (2008) Role of information available over the internet: what are the parents of children undergoing tonsillectomy likely to find? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:601–605

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Informed Consent | American Medical Association. https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media-browser/code-of-medical-ethics-chapter-2.pdf. Accessed 14 Jun 2017

  28. Horbach SE, Rigter IM, Smitt JH et al (2016) Intralesional bleomycin injections for vascular malformations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 137:244–256

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Morgan P, Keller R, Patel K (2016) Evidence-based management of vascular malformations. Facial Plast Surg 32:162–176

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hassanein AH, Mulliken JB, Fishman SJ et al (2011) Evaluation of terminology for vascular anomalies in current literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:347–351

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Patel PA, Barnacle AM (2017) Re: Disorders of the lymphatic system of the abdomen. Clin Radiol 72:91–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Alsafi A, Kaya G, Patel H et al (2013) A comparison of the quality of the information available on the internet on interventional radiology, vascular surgery, and cardiology. J Postgrad Med 59:69–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tavare AN, Alsafi A, Hamady MS (2012) Analysis of the quality of information obtained about uterine artery embolization from the internet. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 35:1355–1362

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Carlsson T, Bergman G, Karlsson A-M et al (2015) Content and quality of information websites about congenital heart defects following a prenatal diagnosis. Interact J Med Res 4:e4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Redmond CE, Nason GJ, Kelly ME et al (2015) Transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy of the prostate: is the information accessible, usable, reliable and readable? Curr Urol 8:32–37

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Is the Lida website assessment tool valid? http://www.minervation.com/does-lida-work/. Accessed 7 Aug 2017

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, Great Ormond Street, London, WC1N 3JH, UK

    Jonathan H. Pass, Amani H. Patel, Sam Stuart, Alex M. Barnacle & Premal A. Patel

  2. University College London Medical School, University College London, London, UK

    Jonathan H. Pass & Amani H. Patel

Authors
  1. Jonathan H. Pass
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amani H. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sam Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alex M. Barnacle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Premal A. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Premal A. Patel.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pass, J.H., Patel, A.H., Stuart, S. et al. Quality and readability of online patient information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations. Pediatr Radiol 48, 708–714 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4074-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-018-4074-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation