Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:14:10.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How readable and reliable is online patient information on chronic rhinosinusitis?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2021

A Habeeb
A Habeeb*
Affiliation:
ENT Surgery, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, England
*
Author for correspondence: Mr Amir Habeeb, 12 Horsted Way, RochesterME1 2XY, UK E-mail: amirhabeeb@hotmail.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to assess the quality and readability of websites on chronic rhinosinusitis.

Methods

A total of 180 results from 3 different search engines regarding ‘chronic rhinosinusitis’, ‘sinusitis’ and ‘sinus infections’ were analysed for readability using the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, Flesch Reading Ease Score and Gunning Fog Index. The Discern tool was used to approximate information quality.

Results

From 180 total searches, 69 unique websites were identified. These had an average Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level of 9.75 (95 per cent confidence interval = 9.12–10.4), a Flesch Reading Ease Score of 45.0 (41.0–49.0) and a Gunning Fog Index of 13.7 (12.9–14.4), which equates to the average reading level of a college or university student. Discern scores were variable but consistently showed good-quality information.

Conclusion

Chronic rhinosinusitis information is of a high quality but is for a reading level higher than that of the average adult. Standardising patient information should ensure adequate comprehension and improve patient compliance.

Keywords

Nasal PolypsOtolaryngologyOtorhinolaryngologic DiseasesSinusitis
Type
Main Articles
Information
The Journal of Laryngology & Otology , Volume 135 , Issue 7 , July 2021 , pp. 644 - 647
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Mr A Habeeb takes responsibility for the integrity of the content of the paper

References

Hopkins, C. Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps. N Engl J Med 2019;381:55–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Zele, T, Claeys, S, Gevaert, P, Van Maele, G, Holtappels, G, Van Cauwenberge, P et al. Differentiation of chronic sinus diseases by measurement of inflammatory mediators. Allergy 2006;61:1280–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ragab, A, Clement, P, Vincken, W. Objective assessment of lower airway involvement in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol 2004;18:15–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ley, P. Communicating with Patients: Improving Communication, Satisfaction and Compliance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992Google Scholar
Kirsch, IS, Jungeblut, A, Jenkins, L, Kolstad, A. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Findings of the National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 1993–275, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 2002Google Scholar
Flesch, R. How to Write Plain English: A Book for Lawyers and Consumers. New York: Harper & Row, 1979Google Scholar
Kincaid, JP, Fishburne, RP Jr, Rogers, RL, Chissom, BS. Derivation of New Readability Formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy Enlisted Personnel, Research Branch Report 8–75. Millington, TN: Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central Florida Institute for Simulation and Training, 1975Google Scholar
Charnock, D. The DISCERN Handbook: Quality Criteria for Consumer Health Information on Treatment Choices. Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press, 2020Google Scholar
Spiers, H, Amin, N, Lakhani, R, Martin, A, Patel, P. Assessing readability and reliability of online patient information regarding vestibular schwannoma. Otol Neurotol 2017;38:470–5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, K, Shee, K, Yap, R. Readability analysis of online health information about overactive bladder. Neurourol Urodyn 2017;36:1782–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plavén-Sigray, P, Matheson, G, Schiffler, B, Thompson, W. The readability of scientific texts is decreasing over time. eLife 2017;6:e27725CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duman, M. Producing Patient Information: How to Research, Develop and Produce Effective Information Resources. London: King's Fund, 2003Google Scholar
Department of Health. Toolkit for Producing Patient Information, Version 2. London: Department of Health Publications, 2003Google Scholar