Online health information on thyroid nodules: do patients understand them?

IF 2.5 Q3 ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM Minerva endocrinology Pub Date : 2023-04-06 DOI:10.23736/S2724-6507.23.03952-0
Emine A Cimbek, Ahmet Cimbek
{"title":"Online health information on thyroid nodules: do patients understand them?","authors":"Emine A Cimbek,&nbsp;Ahmet Cimbek","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6507.23.03952-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Given the lack of a previous study assessing understandability and considering there is only one study assessing the readability and quality of online information related to thyroid nodules, we aimed to assess the readability, understandability, and quality of online patient education materials on thyroid nodules.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Materials were identified through an online search performed by inputting the term \"thyroid nodule\" into Google. A total of 150 websites were identified, 59 met the inclusion criteria. Websites were classified as academic and hospital (N.=29), physician and clinic (N.=7), organization (N.=12), and health information websites (N.=11). The readability was evaluated using an online system performing a group of validated readability tests. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was utilized to assess the understandability. The quality was evaluated through the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among all websites, the mean reading grade level was 11.25±1.88 (range, 8-16), well above the recommended sixth grade reading level (P<0.001). The mean PEMAT Score was 57.4±14.5% (range, 31-88%). For all groups of types of websites, the understandability score was below 70%. There was no statistical difference between the groups for the average reading grade level or the PEMAT score (P=0.379 and P=0.26, respectively). The average JAMA benchmark score was 1.86±1.38 (range 0-4), health information-based websites scored the highest (P=0.007).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online resources on thyroid nodules are written at grade levels above the recommended reading level. Most resources scored poorly using the PEMAT and varied in quality. Future work should focus on developing understandable, high-quality, and grade-level appropriate materials.</p>","PeriodicalId":18690,"journal":{"name":"Minerva endocrinology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva endocrinology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6507.23.03952-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Given the lack of a previous study assessing understandability and considering there is only one study assessing the readability and quality of online information related to thyroid nodules, we aimed to assess the readability, understandability, and quality of online patient education materials on thyroid nodules.

Methods: Materials were identified through an online search performed by inputting the term "thyroid nodule" into Google. A total of 150 websites were identified, 59 met the inclusion criteria. Websites were classified as academic and hospital (N.=29), physician and clinic (N.=7), organization (N.=12), and health information websites (N.=11). The readability was evaluated using an online system performing a group of validated readability tests. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) was utilized to assess the understandability. The quality was evaluated through the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria.

Results: Among all websites, the mean reading grade level was 11.25±1.88 (range, 8-16), well above the recommended sixth grade reading level (P<0.001). The mean PEMAT Score was 57.4±14.5% (range, 31-88%). For all groups of types of websites, the understandability score was below 70%. There was no statistical difference between the groups for the average reading grade level or the PEMAT score (P=0.379 and P=0.26, respectively). The average JAMA benchmark score was 1.86±1.38 (range 0-4), health information-based websites scored the highest (P=0.007).

Conclusions: Online resources on thyroid nodules are written at grade levels above the recommended reading level. Most resources scored poorly using the PEMAT and varied in quality. Future work should focus on developing understandable, high-quality, and grade-level appropriate materials.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于甲状腺结节的在线健康信息:患者了解它们吗?
背景:由于缺乏先前评估可理解性的研究,并且考虑到只有一项研究评估甲状腺结节相关在线信息的可读性和质量,我们旨在评估甲状腺结节在线患者教育材料的可读性、可理解性和质量。方法:通过在谷歌中输入“甲状腺结节”一词进行在线搜索,确定材料。共有150个网站被确定,其中59个符合纳入标准。网站分为学术与医院网站(29个)、医生与诊所网站(7个)、组织网站(12个)和健康信息网站(11个)。使用在线系统执行一组经过验证的可读性测试来评估可读性。使用患者教育材料评估工具(PEMAT)评估可理解性。质量通过美国医学会杂志(JAMA)的基准标准进行评估。结果:在所有网站中,平均阅读水平为11.25±1.88(范围,8-16),远高于推荐的六年级阅读水平(p结论:在线甲状腺结节资源的阅读水平高于推荐阅读水平。大多数资源在使用PEMAT时得分很低,质量参差不齐。今后的工作应侧重于开发可理解的、高质量的、适合年级水平的教材。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
146
期刊最新文献
Diet quality in patients with treatment-resistant schizophrenia: time for improving nutritional recommendations. Zebrafish model in the relentless race to tyrosine kinase inhibitors for neuroendocrine neoplasms. Assessing the impact of a dedicated referral and management algorithm in maternal hypothyroidism. Divulging the overlooked condition: diabetic ketoacidosis as an imminent risk with sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors treatment in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Obesity prevention across the lifespan: assessing the efficacy of intervention studies and discussing future challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1